Silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela: Final Results of Expedited Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 42393-42395 [E7-14947]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
the antidumping duty order on hand
trucks and certain parts thereof (‘‘Hand
Trucks’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’), received July 2, 2007,
meets the statutory and regulatory
requirements for initiation. The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) of this new shipper
review is December 1, 2006, through
May 31, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Quigley or Robert Bolling, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4551 or (202) 482–
3434, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The notice announcing the
antidumping duty order on hand trucks
from the PRC was published on
December 2, 2004. See Antidumping
Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain
Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 70122
(December 2, 2004). On July 2, 2007, we
received a new shipper review request
from New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘New-Tec’’). New-Tec certified
that it is both the producer and exporter
of the subject merchandise upon which
the respective request for a new shipper
review is based.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i),
New-Tec certified that it did not export
hand trucks to the United States during
the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). In
addition, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), New-Tec certified
that, since the initiation of the
investigation, it has never been affiliated
with any exporter or producer who
exported hand trucks to the United
States during the POI, including those
not individually examined during the
investigation. As required by 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), New-Tec also
certified that its export activities were
not controlled by the central
government of the PRC.
In addition to the certifications
described above, New-Tec submitted
documentation establishing the
following: (1) The date on which it first
shipped hand trucks for export to the
United States; (2) the volume of its first
shipment; and (3) the date of its first
sale to an unaffiliated customer in the
United States.
Initiation of New Shipper Review
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we find
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:42 Aug 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
that the request submitted by New-Tec
meets the threshold requirements for
initiation of a new shipper review for
shipments of hand trucks from the PRC
produced and exported by New-Tec.
The POR is December 1, 2006,
through May 31, 2007. See 19 CFR
351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). We intend to issue
preliminary results of this review no
later than 180 days from the date of
initiation, and final results no later than
90 days from the date the preliminary
results are issued. See section
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
It is the Department’s usual practice,
in cases involving non-market
economies, to require that a company
seeking to establish eligibility for an
antidumping duty rate separate from the
country-wide rate provide evidence of
de jure and de facto absence of
government control over the company’s
export activities. Accordingly, we will
issue a questionnaire to New-Tec,
including a separate-rate section. The
review will proceed if the response
provides sufficient indication that NewTec is not subject to either de jure or de
facto government control with respect to
its exports of hand trucks. However, if
New-Tec does not demonstrate its
eligibility for a separate rate, it will be
deemed not separate from other
companies that exported during the POI,
and its new shipper review will be
rescinded.
On August 17, 2006, the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was
signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4
temporarily suspends the authority of
the Department to instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to collect a bond
or other security in lieu of a cash
deposit in a new shipper review.
Therefore, the posting of a bond or other
security under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii)
of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is
not available in this case. Importers of
hand trucks produced by and exported
by New-Tec must continue to post cash
deposits of estimated antidumping
duties on each entry of subject
merchandise (i.e., hand trucks) at the
PRC-wide entity rate of 383.6 percent.
Interested parties that need access to
proprietary information in this new
shipper review should submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and
351.306.
This initiation and notice are in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and
351.221(c)(1)(i).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42393
Dated: July 26, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–14923 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–823, A–834–807, A–307–820]
Silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela: Final
Results of Expedited Five-year
(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of the
Antidumping Duty Orders
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 2, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published in the Federal
Register the notice of initiation of the
first five-year sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on
silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation
of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 72 FR
15652 (April 2, 2007) (‘‘Notice of
Initiation’’). On the basis of notices of
intent to participate and adequate
substantive responses filed on behalf of
domestic interested parties, and
inadequate responses from respondent
interested parties, the Department has
conducted expedited sunset reviews of
these orders pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C). As a result of these
sunset reviews, the Department finds
that revocation of the antidumping duty
orders is likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping at the levels
indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of
Review’’ section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martha Douthit or Dara Iserson, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5050, or (202)
482–4052, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
The antidumping duty orders on
silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela were
published in the Federal Register on
May 23, 2002. See Notice of Amended
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
42394
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Orders: Silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, 67 FR
36149 (May 23, 2002). On April 2, 2007,
the Department initiated the first sunset
reviews of the antidumping duty orders
on silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Act. See Notice of
Initiation. The Department received
notices of intent to participate from
Felman Producation Inc. (‘‘Felman’’),
Eramet Marietta Inc. (‘‘Eramet’’)
(collectively ‘‘domestic interested
parties’’), within the deadline specified
in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Domestic
interested parties claimed interested
party status under section 771(9)(C) of
the Act as producers of the subject
merchandise.
On May 1 and May 2, 2007, the
Department received substantive
responses from domestic interested
parties Felman and Eramet,
respectively, within the deadline
specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). On
May 8, 2007, the Department received a
timely substantive response from Nava
Bharat Ventures Limited (‘‘Nava
Bharat’’), a respondent interested party
from India.1 Nava Bharat claimed
interested party status under section
771(9)(A) of the Act as a producer/
exporter of subject merchandise. On
May 22, 2007, the Department
determined that Nava Bharat did not
provide an adequate response to the
Notice of Initiation in accordance with
19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) because its
shipments accounted for less than 50
percent of exports of subject
merchandise to the United States over
the five calendar years preceding the
initiation of this review. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(1), on the same
day, the Department notified the
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
of its adequacy determination. See
Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman
from the Sunset Team, Sunset Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on
Silicomanganese from India: Adequacy
Determination, dated May 22, 2007. The
Department, therefore, has conducted
expedited sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders pursuant to
section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act.
Scope of the Orders
For purposes of these orders, the
products covered are all forms, sizes
and compositions of silicomanganese,
except low–carbon silicomanganese,
including silicomanganese briquettes,
fines and slag. Silicomanganese is a
1 Nava Bharat received an extension to May 8,
2007, to submit its substantive response.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:42 Aug 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
ferroalloy composed principally of
manganese, silicon and iron, and
normally contains much smaller
proportions of minor elements, such as
carbon, phosphorous and sulfur.
Silicomanganese is sometimes referred
to as ferrosilicon manganese.
Silicomanganese is used primarily in
steel production as a source of both
silicon and manganese.
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.
Silicomanganese is properly classifiable
under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). Some
silicomanganese may also be classified
under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.
The low–carbon silicomanganese
excluded from this scope is a ferro alloy
with the following chemical
specifications: minimum 55 percent
manganese, minimum 27 percent
silicon, minimum 4 percent iron,
maximum 0.10 percent phosphorus,
maximum 0.10 percent carbon and
maximum 0.05 percent sulfur. Low–
carbon silicomanganese is used in the
manufacture of stainless steel and
special carbon steel grades, such as
motor lamination grade steel, requiring
a very low carbon content. It is
sometimes referred to as
ferromanganese–silicon. Low–carbon
silicomanganese is classifiable under
HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040. This
scope covers all silicomanganese,
regardless of its tariff classification.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope remains dispositive.
corresponding recommendation in this
public memorandum which is on file in
B–099, the Central Records Unit, of the
main Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision Memo
can be accessed directly on the
Department’s Web page at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision Memo
are identical in content.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the substantive
responses by parties to these sunset
reviews are addressed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the
Expedited Sunset Reviews of the
Antidumping Duty Orders of
Silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela; Final
Results from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated concurrently
with this notice (‘‘Decision Memo’’),
which is hereby adopted in this notice.
The issues discussed in the Decision
Memo include the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping
and the rate likely to prevail if the
orders were revoked. Parties can find a
complete discussion of all issues raised
in these sunset reviews and the
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Final Results of Reviews
The Department determines that
revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the following
duty rates:
Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers
India.
Nava Bharat ................................
Universal Ferro and Allied
Chemicals, Ltd. .......................
All Others Rate ...........................
Kazakhstan.
Alloy 2000, S.A. ..........................
Kazakhstan–Wide Rate ..............
Venezuela.
´
Hornos Electricos de Venezuela,
S.A. .........................................
All Others Rate ...........................
Weighted–
Average
Margin
(percent)
15.32
20.53
17.74
247.88
247.88
..................
24.62
International Trade Commission (ITC)
Notification
In accordance with section 752(c)(3)
of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the
final results of this expedited sunset
review.
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 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective orders
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 this
determination and notice in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of
the Act.
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Notices
Dated: July 25, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–14947 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am]
We have conducted this review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of Order
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–469–805
Stainless Steel Bar from Spain: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 28, 2007, the
Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the 2005/2006
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar from Spain. We gave interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
the preliminary results. Based on our
analysis of the comments received we
did not make changes for the final
results. The final weighted–average
dumping margin for a single respondent
is listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of
the Review’’ section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dmitry Vladamirov or Minoo Hatten,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0665 and (202)
482–1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Background
On March 28, 2007, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) published
Stainless Steel Bar from Spain:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
14522 (March 28, 2007) (Preliminary
Results) in the Federal Register. The
period of review is March 1, 2005,
through February 28, 2006.
We invited parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results. On April 27, 2007,
we received a case brief from the
respondent, Sidenor Industrial SL
(Sidenor). On May 7, 2007, Carpenter
Technology Corporation, Valbruna
Slater Stainless, Inc., and Electralloy
Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson,
Inc. (collectively, the domestic
interested parties), filed a rebuttal brief.
At the request of Sidenor, we held a
hearing on May 16, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:42 Aug 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
The product covered by this order is
stainless steel bar (SSB). SSB means
articles of stainless steel in straight
lengths that have been either hot–rolled,
forged, turned, cold–drawn, cold–rolled
or otherwise cold–finished, or ground,
having a uniform solid cross section
along their whole length in the shape of
circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles,
hexagons, octagons or other convex
polygons. SSB includes cold–finished
SSBs that are turned or ground in
straight lengths, whether produced from
hot–rolled bar or from straightened and
cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that
have indentations, ribs, grooves, or
other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term
does not include stainless steel semi–
finished products, cut length flat–rolled
products (i.e., cut length rolled products
which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness
have a width measuring at least 10 times
the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in
thickness having a width which exceeds
150 mm and measures at least twice the
thickness), wire (i.e., cold–formed
products in coils, of any uniform solid
cross section along their whole length,
which do not conform to the definition
of flat–rolled products), and angles,
shapes and sections.
The SSB subject to this order is
currently classifiable under subheadings
7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050,
7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045,
7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All comments raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties in this review
of the antidumping duty order on
stainless steel bar from Spain are
addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’ from Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary, dated July
26, 2007 (Decision Memorandum),
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
The Decision Memorandum, which is a
public document, is on file in the
Central Records Unit, main Commerce
building, Room B–099, and is accessible
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/
index.html. The paper copy and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42395
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since The Preliminary Results
With respect to Sidenor, in the
Preliminary Results, we determined that
the use of adverse facts available is
appropriate as the basis for the
weighted–average dumping margin. For
these final results of review, we have
continued to rely on the use of adverse
facts available in establishing the
weighted–average dumping margin for
Sidenor for the period of review.
Therefore, there were no changes since
the Preliminary Results.
Use of Adverse Facts Available
In accordance with section 776(b) of
the Act, we determine that the use of
adverse facts available as the basis for
the weighted–average dumping margin
is appropriate for Sidenor. As explained
in the Preliminary Results and in the
Memorandum from Mark Todd to Neal
Halper, entitled ‘‘Use of Adverse Facts
Available for the Preliminary
Determination,’’ dated March 22, 2007
(AFA Memo), we determined that the
cost–of-production (COP) questionnaire
responses submitted by Sidenor are
incomplete and cannot be used to
calculate an accurate dumping margin
for Sidenor. Specifically, as a result of
the serious deficiencies that we
identified and that Sidenor failed
repeatedly to address with respect to its
reporting of the COP information, we
are unable to determine adequately
whether the reported COP information
reflects, reasonably and accurately, the
costs incurred by Sidenor to produce
the merchandise under consideration.
Without this information, we cannot
calculate an accurate dumping margin
for this company.
Therefore, as a consequence of the
requested necessary information being
absent from the record, we find that our
reliance on facts otherwise available is
warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(1)
of the Act. Furthermore, we find that
Sidenor has withheld requested
information, failed to provide such
information in the form and manner
required, impeded the conduct of this
review, and reported information that
could not be verified. As such, pursuant
to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D)
of the Act, we find that the use of facts
available for the final results is
warranted. For a detailed discussion,
please refer to the AFA Memo. See also
the Decision Memorandum for a
complete discussion of this issue.In
addition, we find that Sidenor did not
act to the best of its ability in reporting
the COP information. Despite our
repeated requests for information and
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 148 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42393-42395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14947]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-823, A-834-807, A-307-820]
Silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela: Final
Results of Expedited Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of the Antidumping
Duty Orders
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 2, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published in the Federal Register the notice of
initiation of the first five-year sunset reviews of the antidumping
duty orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''). See Initiation of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews, 72 FR 15652
(April 2, 2007) (``Notice of Initiation''). On the basis of notices of
intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on
behalf of domestic interested parties, and inadequate responses from
respondent interested parties, the Department has conducted expedited
sunset reviews of these orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C). As a result of these sunset
reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty
orders is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at
the levels indicated in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this
notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit or Dara Iserson, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5050, or (202) 482-4052, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela were published in the Federal Register on May
23, 2002. See Notice of Amended
[[Page 42394]]
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Orders: Silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, 67
FR 36149 (May 23, 2002). On April 2, 2007, the Department initiated the
first sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese
from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, pursuant to section 751(c) of
the Act. See Notice of Initiation. The Department received notices of
intent to participate from Felman Producation Inc. (``Felman''), Eramet
Marietta Inc. (``Eramet'') (collectively ``domestic interested
parties''), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).
Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under
section 771(9)(C) of the Act as producers of the subject merchandise.
On May 1 and May 2, 2007, the Department received substantive
responses from domestic interested parties Felman and Eramet,
respectively, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
On May 8, 2007, the Department received a timely substantive response
from Nava Bharat Ventures Limited (``Nava Bharat''), a respondent
interested party from India.\1\ Nava Bharat claimed interested party
status under section 771(9)(A) of the Act as a producer/exporter of
subject merchandise. On May 22, 2007, the Department determined that
Nava Bharat did not provide an adequate response to the Notice of
Initiation in accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) because its
shipments accounted for less than 50 percent of exports of subject
merchandise to the United States over the five calendar years preceding
the initiation of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(1), on the same day, the Department notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of its adequacy determination.
See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from the Sunset Team, Sunset
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Silicomanganese from India:
Adequacy Determination, dated May 22, 2007. The Department, therefore,
has conducted expedited sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders
pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nava Bharat received an extension to May 8, 2007, to submit
its substantive response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Orders
For purposes of these orders, the products covered are all forms,
sizes and compositions of silicomanganese, except low-carbon
silicomanganese, including silicomanganese briquettes, fines and slag.
Silicomanganese is a ferroalloy composed principally of manganese,
silicon and iron, and normally contains much smaller proportions of
minor elements, such as carbon, phosphorous and sulfur. Silicomanganese
is sometimes referred to as ferrosilicon manganese. Silicomanganese is
used primarily in steel production as a source of both silicon and
manganese. 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. Silicomanganese is
properly classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may
also be classified under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.
The low-carbon silicomanganese excluded from this scope is a ferro
alloy with the following chemical specifications: minimum 55 percent
manganese, minimum 27 percent silicon, minimum 4 percent iron, maximum
0.10 percent phosphorus, maximum 0.10 percent carbon and maximum 0.05
percent sulfur. Low-carbon silicomanganese is used in the manufacture
of stainless steel and special carbon steel grades, such as motor
lamination grade steel, requiring a very low carbon content. It is
sometimes referred to as ferromanganese-silicon. Low-carbon
silicomanganese is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.
This scope covers all silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff
classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
remains dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the substantive responses by parties to these
sunset reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders of
Silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela; Final Results
from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated concurrently with this notice (``Decision
Memo''), which is hereby adopted in this notice. The issues discussed
in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the rate likely to prevail if the orders were
revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in
these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendation in this
public memorandum which is on file in B-099, the Central Records Unit,
of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Department's Web page at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memo are identical in content.
Final Results of Reviews
The Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela would
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the
following duty rates:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Average Margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
India..................................................
Nava Bharat............................................ 15.32
Universal Ferro and Allied Chemicals, Ltd.............. 20.53
All Others Rate........................................ 17.74
Kazakhstan.............................................
Alloy 2000, S.A........................................ 247.88
Kazakhstan-Wide Rate................................... 247.88
Venezuela..............................................
Hornos El[eacute]ctricos de Venezuela, S.A............. ...............
All Others Rate........................................ 24.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification
In accordance with section 752(c)(3) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of the final results of this expedited sunset review.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order
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 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective orders 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 this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act.
[[Page 42395]]
Dated: July 25, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-14947 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
