Silicomanganese From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53628-53631 [E5-4939]
Download as PDF
53628
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices
from Korea, pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act). On the basis of the notice of
intent to participate and an adequate
substantive response filed on behalf of
domestic interested parties and no
response from respondent interested
parties, the Department conducted an
expedited sunset review. As a result of
this sunset review, the Department finds
that revocation of the antidumping duty
order on PET film from Korea would
likely lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping at the levels listed below in
the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of
Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE:
September 9, 2005.
Dana
Mermelstein or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1391 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 2, 2005, the Department
initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping duty order on PET film
from Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of
the Act. See Initiation of Five-year
(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 5415
(February 2, 2005). The Department
received a notice of intent to participate
from two domestic interested parties,
DuPont Teijin Films (DTF) and
Mitsubishi Polyester Film LLC
(Mitsubishi), within the deadline
specified in 19 C.F.R. § 351.218(d)(1)(i)
of the Department’s regulations.
Domestic interested parties claimed
interested party status under section
771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. producer
of a domestic like product. We received
a complete substantive response from
domestic interested parties within the
30-day deadline specified in 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not
receive any response from respondent
interested parties. As a result, pursuant
to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19
C.F.R. § 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the
Department conducted an expedited
sunset review of the order.
On May 26, 2005, the Department
extended the time limit for the final
results of this sunset review to not later
than August 31, 2005. See Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film from South Korea;
Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of Sunset Review of
Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 30416
(May 26, 2005).
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:19 Sep 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
Scope of the Order
The antidumping duty order on PET
film from Korea covers shipments of all
gauges of raw, pre–treated, or primed
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,
and strip, whether extruded or co–
extruded. The films excluded from this
order are metallized films and other
finished films that have had at least one
of their surfaces modified by the
application of a performance–enhancing
resinous or inorganic layer of more than
0.00001 inches (0.254 micrometers)
thick. Roller transport cleaning film
which has at least one of its surfaces
modified by the application of 0.5
micrometers of SBR latex has also been
ruled as not within the scope of the
order. PET film is currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00.1
While the HTS subheading is provided
for convenience and for customs
purposes, the written description
remains dispositive as to the scope of
the product coverage.
This sunset review covers imports
from all producers and exporters of PET
film from Korea, other than imports by
Toray Saehan, Inc.2 and Kolon
Industries, for which the order was
revoked.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in this case are
addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’ from Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to Joseph A.
Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, dated August
30, 2005 (Decision Memorandum),
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
The issues discussed in the Decision
Memorandum include the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping
and the magnitude of the margin likely
to prevail if the order were revoked.
Parties can find a complete discussion
of all issues raised in this sunset review
and the corresponding recommendation
in this public memorandum, which is
on file in room B–099 of the main
Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading
‘‘September 2005.’’ The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
We determine that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on PET Film
from Korea would likely lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the following percentage weighted–
average margins:
Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percent)
SKC Limited and SKC
America, Inc. .............
All Others ......................
13.92
21.50
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO)
of their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.305 of
the Department’s regulations. Timely
notification of the return or destruction
of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and terms of an APO is a
violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: August 30, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–4942 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
1 Effective
July 1, 2003, the HTS subheading
3920.62.00.00 was divided into 3920.62.00.10
(metallized PET film) and 3920.62.00.90 (nonmetallized PET film).
2 In a changed circumstances review, the
Department determined that Toray Saehan, Inc. was
the successor-in-interest to Saehan Industries, Inc.
(Saehan). See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet and Strip from Korea, Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 65 FR 34661 (May 31,
2000). Prior to that, in another changed
circumstances review, the Department determined
that Saehan was the successor-in-interest to Cheil
Synthetics, Inc. (Cheil). See Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the
Republic of Korea, Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 3703 (January 26, 1998). The
Department calculated margins for Cheil in the
investigation of PET film from Korea and in
subsequent reviews.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–351–824]
Silicomanganese From Brazil:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
silicomanganese from Brazil
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices
manufactured and exported by Rio Doce
ˆ
Manganes S.A. (RDM), Companhia
Paulista de Ferro–Ligas (CPFL), and
Urucum Mineracao S.A. (Urucum)
¸˜
(collectively RDM/CPFL) in response to
a request from Eramet Marietta Inc., a
domestic manufacturer of
silicomanganese. This review covers the
period December 1, 2003, through
November 30, 2004.
We have preliminarily determined
that RDM/CPFL did not make sales of
the subject merchandise to the United
States at prices below normal value
during the period of review. We invite
interested parties to comment on these
preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yang Jin Chun at (202) 482–5760 or
Richard Rimlinger at (202) 482–4477,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 22, 1994, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on
silicomanganese from Brazil. See Notice
of Antidumping Duty Order:
Silicomanganese from Brazil, 59 FR
66003 (December 22, 1994). On
December 1, 2004, we published in the
Federal Register a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of
this order covering the period December
1, 2003, through November 30, 2004.
See Antidumping or Countervailing
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 69 FR 69889
(December 1, 2004). On December 30,
2004, Eramet Marietta Inc. requested
that the Department conduct an
administrative review of RDM/CPFL’s
sales. On January 31, 2005, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of this
administrative review. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 70 FR 4818 (January
31, 2005). The Department is
conducting this review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of Order
The merchandise covered by this
order is silicomanganese.
Silicomanganese, which is sometimes
called ferrosilicon manganese, is a
ferroalloy composed principally of
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:19 Sep 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
manganese, silicon and iron, and
normally contains much smaller
proportions of minor elements, such as
carbon, phosphorus, and sulfur.
Silicomanganese generally contains by
weight not less than 4 percent iron,
more than 30 percent manganese, more
than 8 percent silicon, and not more
than 3 percent phosphorous. All
compositions, forms, and sizes of
silicomanganese are included within the
scope of the order, including
silicomanganese slag, fines, and
briquettes. Silicomanganese is used
primarily in steel production as a source
of both silicon and manganese.
Silicomanganese is currently
classifiable under subheading
7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Some silicomanganese may also
currently be classifiable under HTSUS
subheading 7202.99.5040. This order
covers all silicomanganese, regardless of
its tariff classification. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the order remains
dispositive.
Collapsing
The Department’s regulations outline
the criteria for collapsing (i.e., treating
as a single entity) affiliated producers
for purposes of calculating a dumping
margin. The regulations state that we
will treat two or more affiliated
producers as a single entity where those
producers have production facilities for
identical or similar products that would
not require substantial retooling of
either facility in order to restructure
manufacturing priorities and we
conclude that there is a significant
potential for manipulation of price or
production. In identifying a significant
potential for the manipulation of price
or production, the Department may
consider the following factors: (i) the
level of common ownership; (ii) the
extent to which managerial employees
or board members of one firm sit on the
board of directors of an affiliated firm;
and (iii) whether operations are
intertwined, such as through the sharing
of sales information, involvement in
production and pricing decisions, the
sharing of facilities or employees, or
significant transactions between the
affiliated producers. See 19 CFR
351.401(f).
Because RDM and Urucum are
entities wholly owned by Companhia
Vale de Rio Doce (CVRD) and CPFL is
a subsidiary of RDM, CVRD is affiliated
with RDM and Urucum, and RDM is
affiliated with CPFL. Furthermore,
based on CVRD’s investment interest in
both companies, we find that CVRD is
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53629
in the position legally and/or
operationally to exercise direction or
restraint over RDM, CPFL, and Urucum
and, thus, has direct or indirect control
within the meaning of section
771(33)(F) of the Act. As such, we
determine that RDM, CPFL, and
Urucum are affiliated pursuant to
section 771(33)(F) of the Act.
With respect to the first criterion of 19
CFR 351.401(f), the information
currently on the record indicates that
RDM, CPFL, and Urucum use similar
production facilities, in terms of
production capacities and type of
machinery, and employ virtually
identical production processes to
produce identical or similar
silicomanganese products. See RDM/
CPFL’s April 11, 2005, questionnaire
response at pages D–3 through D–5.
Based on this information, we find that
the companies could shift the
production requirements from one
facility to the other without requiring
substantial retooling in order to
restructure manufacturing priorities.
We also find that a significant
potential for manipulation of prices,
production costs, and production
priorities exists pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(f)(2). Specifically, the
information on the record indicates the
following: CVRD has a direct
involvement in RDM’s, CPFL’s, and
Urucum’s activities associated with the
production and sales, as well as the
transportation of raw materials; all three
companies share the expertise of an
executive officer; all three companies
have heavily intertwined operations
with respect to their purchases of
manganese ore from each other’s mines.
Therefore, for the purposes of this
administrative review, we find that
RDM, CPFL, and Urucum are affiliated
and have collapsed them into one entity
pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.401(f). For a more
complete discussion of this issue, see
the September 2, 2005, Memorandum
from Yang Jin Chun to Laurie Parkhill,
‘‘Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on
Silicomanganese from Brazil: Collapsing
of Affiliated Producers Rio Doce
ˆ
Manganes S.A., Companhia Paulista de
Ferro–Ligas, and Urucum Mineraca S.A.
¸˜
for Purposes of Calculating a Dumping
Margin,’’ which is on file in the Central
Records Unit (CRU) at the main
Department building.
Affiliation of Parties
Pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and
(F) of the Act, the Department has
preliminarily determined that certain
customers to which RDM/CPFL sold
silicomanganese during the period of
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
53630
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices
review and whom RDM/CPFL identified
as unaffiliated parties are, in fact,
affiliated with RDM/CPFL. Specifically,
the Department has determined that
RDM/CPFL and some of its home–
market customers are under the
common control of CVRD, RDM/CPFL’s
parent company. According to section
771(33)(F) of the Act, two or more
persons under common control with
any other person shall be considered
affiliated. Thus, we have preliminarily
found these companies to be affiliated
with RDM/CPFL. For a complete
discussion of this issue, see the
September 2, 2005, Memorandum to the
File, ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of the
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on
Silicomanganese from Brazil: Rio Doce
ˆ
Manganes S.A. (RDM), Companhia
Paulista de Ferro–Ligas (CPFL), and
Urucum Mineraca S.A. (Urucum)
¸˜
(collectively, RDM/CPFL),’’ which is on
file in the CRU.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of
silicomanganese from Brazil were made
in the United States at less than normal
value, we compared the export price to
the normal value. When making
comparisons in accordance with section
771(16) of the Act, we considered all
comparable products sold in the home
market that were in the ordinary course
of trade for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we
used export price, as defined in section
772(a) of the Act, because the subject
merchandise was sold directly to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States prior to the date of importation.
We based export price on the Free–onBoard price to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States. We
made deductions, where appropriate,
consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act for movement expenses.
Normal Value
A. Home–Market Viability
Based on a comparison of the
aggregate quantity of home–market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the
quantity of foreign like product sold by
RDM/CPFL in the exporting country
was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States,
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act.
RDM/CPFL’s quantity of sales in its
home market was greater than five
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:19 Sep 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
percent of its sales to the U.S. market.
Therefore, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based
normal value on the prices at which the
foreign like product was first sold for
consumption in the exporting country
in the usual commercial quantities and
in the ordinary course of trade.
B. Arm’s–Length Sales
RDM/CPFL made sales in the home
market to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers. The Department may
calculate normal value based on a sale
to an affiliated party only if it is
satisfied that the price to the affiliated
party is comparable to the price at
which sales are made to parties not
affiliated with the exporter or producer,
i.e., sales at arm’s–length prices. See 19
CFR 351.403(c). We excluded sales to
affiliated customers for consumption in
the home market that we determined
were not at arm’s–length prices from our
analysis. To test whether these sales
were made at arm’s–length prices, we
compared the prices of sales of
comparable merchandise to affiliated
and unaffiliated customers, net of
movement charges, direct selling
expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with
the Department’s practice, when the
prices charged to an affiliated party are,
on average, between 98 and 102 percent
of the prices charged to unaffiliated
parties for merchandise comparable to
that sold to the affiliated party, we
determine that the sales to the affiliated
party are at arm’s–length prices and
include these sales in our calculation of
normal value. See Antidumping
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in
the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR
69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). In
this review, however, we determined
that no sales to affiliated parties were at
arm’s–length prices. As such, we did
not include these sales in our
calculation of normal value.
C. Cost–of-Production Analysis
Because the Department disregarded
RDM/CPFL’s home–market sales that it
determined were sold at below–cost
prices in the most recently completed
administrative review, we had
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that sales of the foreign like product
under consideration for the
determination of normal value in this
review may have been made at prices
below the cost of production (COP) as
provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP
investigation of sales by RDM/CPFL in
the home market.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Based on the respondent’s request, we
allowed the cost–reporting period to
correspond with RDM/CPFL’s 2004
fiscal year. Before making any price
comparisons, we conducted the COP
analysis. We calculated COP, in
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the
Act, based on the sum of the costs of
materials and fabrication employed in
producing the foreign like product plus
amounts for home–market selling,
general, and administrative expenses,
financial expenses, and packing
expenses. For the preliminary results of
review, we relied on the COP
information submitted by RDM/CPFL in
its questionnaire responses.
In accordance with section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we tested whether home–
market sales of the foreign like product
were made at prices below the COP
within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities and whether any
such prices permitted the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time.
We compared model–specific COPs to
the reported home–market prices less
any applicable movement charges.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the
Act, when less than 20 percent of the
respondent’s sales of the foreign like
product were at prices less than the
COP, we did not disregard any below–
cost sales of that product because the
below–cost sales were not made in
substantial quantities within an
extended period of time. When 20
percent or more of the respondent’s
sales of the foreign like product during
the period of review were at prices less
than the COP, we disregarded the
below–cost sales because they were
made in substantial quantities within an
extended period of time in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act and, based on comparisons of prices
to weighted–average COPs for the
period of review, we determined that
these sales were at prices which would
not permit recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act. Based on this test, we
disregarded below–cost sales for RDM/
CPFL.
D. Calculation of Normal Value
Because we were able to find
contemporaneous home–market sales
made in the ordinary course of trade for
a comparison to all export–price sales,
in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)
of the Act we based normal value on the
prices at which the foreign like product
was sold for consumption in the home
market. Home–market prices were based
on ex–factory or delivered prices to
unaffiliated purchasers. When
applicable, we made adjustments for
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices
differences in packing and for
movement expenses in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
We also made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401.
Specifically, we made circumstance–ofsale adjustments by deducting home–
market direct selling expenses from and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to
normal value.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily determine that a margin of
0.00 percent exists for RDM/CPFL for
the period December 1, 2003, through
November 30, 2004.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the
Department will disclose to parties
calculations performed in connection
with these preliminary results within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. A hearing, if
requested, will be held at the main
Department building. We will notify
parties of the exact date, time, and place
for any such hearing.
Issues raised in hearings will be
limited to those raised in the respective
case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from
interested parties may be filed no later
than 30 days after publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the
issues raised in case briefs, may be
submitted no later than five days after
the deadline for filing case briefs.
Parties who submit case or rebuttal
briefs in this proceeding are requested
to submit with each argument a
statement of the issue and a brief
summary of the argument with an
electronic version included.
The Department will publish a notice
of final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in the case
briefs, within 120 days from the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. Upon
completion of this review, the
Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the CBP.
Further, the following deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results
of administrative review for all
shipments of silicomanganese entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:19 Sep 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash–deposit
rate for RDM/CPFL will be the rate
established in the final results of review;
(2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not mentioned
above, the cash–deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review,
or the less–than-fair–value (LTFV)
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
then the cash–deposit rate will be the
rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the producer is a firm
covered in this review, a prior review,
or the LTFV investigation, the cash–
deposit rate shall be 17.60 percent, the
all–others rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicomanganese from
Brazil, 59 FR 55432 (November 7, 1994).
These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the
next administrative review.
This notice serves as a primary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
We are publishing this notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 2, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–4939 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–588–702, A–580–813, A–583–816]
Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe
Fittings from Japan, South Korea, and
Taiwan; Final Results of the Expedited
Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping
Duty Orders
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 2, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53631
Department) initiated sunset reviews of
the antidumping duty orders on certain
stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings
(pipe fittings) from Japan, South Korea,
and Taiwan pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act). On the basis of a notice of
intent to participate and adequate
substantive responses filed on behalf of
domestic interested parties and no
response from respondent interested
parties, the Department conducted
expedited (120–day) sunset reviews. As
a result of these sunset reviews, the
Department finds that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. The dumping
margins are identified below in the
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this
notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
September 9, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202)
482–1391.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 2, 2005, the Department
initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on pipe
fittings from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
See Initiation of Five–Year (‘‘Sunset’’)
Reviews, 69 FR 69891 (Feb. 2, 2005).
The Department received notices of
intent to participate from four domestic
interested parties, Flowline Division of
Markovitz Enterprises, Inc. (Flowline),
Gerlin, Inc. (Gerlin), Shaw Alloy Piping
Products, Inc. (formerly Alloy Piping
Products, Inc.) (Shaw), and Taylor Forge
Stainless, Inc. (Taylor Forge)
(collectively, domestic interested
parties), within the deadline specified
in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the
Department’s regulations. Domestic
interested parties claimed interested
party status under section 771(9)(C) of
the Act as U.S. producers of a domestic
like product. We received a complete
substantive response from the domestic
interested party within the 30–day
deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not
receive any responses from any
respondent interested parties. As a
result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B)
of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department
conducted expedited sunset reviews of
these orders.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53628-53631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4939]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-824]
Silicomanganese From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on silicomanganese from Brazil
[[Page 53629]]
manufactured and exported by Rio Doce Mangan[ecirc]s S.A. (RDM),
Companhia Paulista de Ferro-Ligas (CPFL), and Urucum
Minera[ccedil][atilde]o S.A. (Urucum) (collectively RDM/CPFL) in
response to a request from Eramet Marietta Inc., a domestic
manufacturer of silicomanganese. This review covers the period December
1, 2003, through November 30, 2004.
We have preliminarily determined that RDM/CPFL did not make sales
of the subject merchandise to the United States at prices below normal
value during the period of review. We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun at (202) 482-5760 or
Richard Rimlinger at (202) 482-4477, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 22, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on
silicomanganese from Brazil. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:
Silicomanganese from Brazil, 59 FR 66003 (December 22, 1994). On
December 1, 2004, we published in the Federal Register a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of this order covering
the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. See Antidumping
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 69889 (December 1,
2004). On December 30, 2004, Eramet Marietta Inc. requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of RDM/CPFL's sales. On
January 31, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a
notice of initiation of this administrative review. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005). The Department
is conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of Order
The merchandise covered by this order is silicomanganese.
Silicomanganese, which is sometimes called ferrosilicon manganese, is a
ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, silicon and iron, and
normally contains much smaller proportions of minor elements, such as
carbon, phosphorus, and sulfur. Silicomanganese generally contains by
weight not less than 4 percent iron, more than 30 percent manganese,
more than 8 percent silicon, and not more than 3 percent phosphorous.
All compositions, forms, and sizes of silicomanganese are included
within the scope of the order, including silicomanganese slag, fines,
and briquettes. Silicomanganese is used primarily in steel production
as a source of both silicon and manganese.
Silicomanganese is currently classifiable under subheading
7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may also currently be classifiable under
HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040. This order covers all silicomanganese,
regardless of its tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the order remains dispositive.
Collapsing
The Department's regulations outline the criteria for collapsing
(i.e., treating as a single entity) affiliated producers for purposes
of calculating a dumping margin. The regulations state that we will
treat two or more affiliated producers as a single entity where those
producers have production facilities for identical or similar products
that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in
order to restructure manufacturing priorities and we conclude that
there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or
production. In identifying a significant potential for the manipulation
of price or production, the Department may consider the following
factors: (i) the level of common ownership; (ii) the extent to which
managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of
directors of an affiliated firm; and (iii) whether operations are
intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales information,
involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of
facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the
affiliated producers. See 19 CFR 351.401(f).
Because RDM and Urucum are entities wholly owned by Companhia Vale
de Rio Doce (CVRD) and CPFL is a subsidiary of RDM, CVRD is affiliated
with RDM and Urucum, and RDM is affiliated with CPFL. Furthermore,
based on CVRD's investment interest in both companies, we find that
CVRD is in the position legally and/or operationally to exercise
direction or restraint over RDM, CPFL, and Urucum and, thus, has direct
or indirect control within the meaning of section 771(33)(F) of the
Act. As such, we determine that RDM, CPFL, and Urucum are affiliated
pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act.
With respect to the first criterion of 19 CFR 351.401(f), the
information currently on the record indicates that RDM, CPFL, and
Urucum use similar production facilities, in terms of production
capacities and type of machinery, and employ virtually identical
production processes to produce identical or similar silicomanganese
products. See RDM/CPFL's April 11, 2005, questionnaire response at
pages D-3 through D-5. Based on this information, we find that the
companies could shift the production requirements from one facility to
the other without requiring substantial retooling in order to
restructure manufacturing priorities.
We also find that a significant potential for manipulation of
prices, production costs, and production priorities exists pursuant to
19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Specifically, the information on the record
indicates the following: CVRD has a direct involvement in RDM's,
CPFL's, and Urucum's activities associated with the production and
sales, as well as the transportation of raw materials; all three
companies share the expertise of an executive officer; all three
companies have heavily intertwined operations with respect to their
purchases of manganese ore from each other's mines. Therefore, for the
purposes of this administrative review, we find that RDM, CPFL, and
Urucum are affiliated and have collapsed them into one entity pursuant
to section 771(33) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(f). For a more
complete discussion of this issue, see the September 2, 2005,
Memorandum from Yang Jin Chun to Laurie Parkhill, ``Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Silicomanganese from Brazil:
Collapsing of Affiliated Producers Rio Doce Mangan[ecirc]s S.A.,
Companhia Paulista de Ferro-Ligas, and Urucum Minera[ccedil][atilde]
S.A. for Purposes of Calculating a Dumping Margin,'' which is on file
in the Central Records Unit (CRU) at the main Department building.
Affiliation of Parties
Pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act, the Department
has preliminarily determined that certain customers to which RDM/CPFL
sold silicomanganese during the period of
[[Page 53630]]
review and whom RDM/CPFL identified as unaffiliated parties are, in
fact, affiliated with RDM/CPFL. Specifically, the Department has
determined that RDM/CPFL and some of its home-market customers are
under the common control of CVRD, RDM/CPFL's parent company. According
to section 771(33)(F) of the Act, two or more persons under common
control with any other person shall be considered affiliated. Thus, we
have preliminarily found these companies to be affiliated with RDM/
CPFL. For a complete discussion of this issue, see the September 2,
2005, Memorandum to the File, ``Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Silicomanganese from Brazil: Rio Doce Mangan[ecirc]s S.A. (RDM),
Companhia Paulista de Ferro-Ligas (CPFL), and Urucum
Minera[ccedil][atilde] S.A. (Urucum) (collectively, RDM/CPFL),'' which
is on file in the CRU.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of silicomanganese from Brazil were made
in the United States at less than normal value, we compared the export
price to the normal value. When making comparisons in accordance with
section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all comparable products sold
in the home market that were in the ordinary course of trade for
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used export price, as
defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise
was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States prior to the date of importation. We based export price on the
Free-on-Board price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. We made deductions, where appropriate, consistent with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act for movement expenses.
Normal Value
A. Home-Market Viability
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product
sold by RDM/CPFL in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a
proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. RDM/CPFL's
quantity of sales in its home market was greater than five percent of
its sales to the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on the prices at
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the
exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the
ordinary course of trade.
B. Arm's-Length Sales
RDM/CPFL made sales in the home market to affiliated and
unaffiliated customers. The Department may calculate normal value based
on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price
to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are
made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e.,
sales at arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). We excluded sales
to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that we
determined were not at arm's-length prices from our analysis. To test
whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the
prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and
unaffiliated customers, net of movement charges, direct selling
expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance
with the Department's practice, when the prices charged to an
affiliated party are, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the
prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to
that sold to the affiliated party, we determine that the sales to the
affiliated party are at arm's-length prices and include these sales in
our calculation of normal value. See Antidumping Proceedings:
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186,
69187 (November 15, 2002). In this review, however, we determined that
no sales to affiliated parties were at arm's-length prices. As such, we
did not include these sales in our calculation of normal value.
C. Cost-of-Production Analysis
Because the Department disregarded RDM/CPFL's home-market sales
that it determined were sold at below-cost prices in the most recently
completed administrative review, we had reasonable grounds to believe
or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration
for the determination of normal value in this review may have been made
at prices below the cost of production (COP) as provided by section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by RDM/CPFL in
the home market.
Based on the respondent's request, we allowed the cost-reporting
period to correspond with RDM/CPFL's 2004 fiscal year. Before making
any price comparisons, we conducted the COP analysis. We calculated
COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, based on the sum
of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the
foreign like product plus amounts for home-market selling, general, and
administrative expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. For
the preliminary results of review, we relied on the COP information
submitted by RDM/CPFL in its questionnaire responses.
In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested whether
home-market sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below
the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and
whether any such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to the
reported home-market prices less any applicable movement charges.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20
percent of the respondent's sales of the foreign like product were at
prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of
that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial
quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more
of the respondent's sales of the foreign like product during the period
of review were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-
cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an
extended period of time in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C) of the Act and, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average
COPs for the period of review, we determined that these sales were at
prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales for RDM/CPFL.
D. Calculation of Normal Value
Because we were able to find contemporaneous home-market sales made
in the ordinary course of trade for a comparison to all export-price
sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act we based
normal value on the prices at which the foreign like product was sold
for consumption in the home market. Home-market prices were based on
ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers. When
applicable, we made adjustments for
[[Page 53631]]
differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401. Specifically, we made
circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct
selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal
value.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin
of 0.00 percent exists for RDM/CPFL for the period December 1, 2003,
through November 30, 2004.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties calculations performed in connection with these preliminary
results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held at the main
Department building. We will notify parties of the exact date, time,
and place for any such hearing.
Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the
respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested
parties may be filed no later than 30 days after publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in case briefs,
may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for filing
case briefs. Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of
the issue and a brief summary of the argument with an electronic
version included.
The Department will publish a notice of final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days from the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to the CBP.
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for
all shipments of silicomanganese entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash-deposit rate for RDM/CPFL
will be the rate established in the final results of review; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not mentioned above, the
cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash-deposit
rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor
the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the
LTFV investigation, the cash-deposit rate shall be 17.60 percent, the
all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicomanganese
from Brazil, 59 FR 55432 (November 7, 1994). These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a primary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 2, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4939 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S