Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 12122-12127 [E8-4416]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 45 (Thursday, March 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12122-12127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4416]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-896]


Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely request from Tianjin Magnesium 
International Co., Ltd. (TMI) the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting the 2006-2007 administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC). The Department has reviewed shipments of subject 
merchandise made by TMI and has determined that TMI made sales below 
normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR). If the preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties 
on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the 
importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will 
issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of 
publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 15, 2005, the Department published an antidumping duty 
order on magnesium metal from the PRC. See Notice of Antidumping Duty 
Order: Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 19928 
(April 15, 2005). On April 2, 2007, the Department published a notice 
of opportunity to request an administrative review of the above-
referenced order.

[[Page 12123]]

See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 
15650 (April 2, 2007). Based on timely request for an administrative 
review, the Department initiated an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the PRC with respect to 
TMI. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 29968 (May 30, 2007).
    On May 25, 2007, the Department issued a separate rate 
certification and the full antidumping duty questionnaire to TMI. We 
received timely separate rate certification and questionnaire responses 
from TMI. On August 2, 2007, we received the Petitioner's comments on 
TMI's sections A, C, and D questionnaire responses. We issued 
supplemental questionnaires to TMI in August and September 2007, and 
January 2008. We received timely responses from TMI to these 
questionnaires on August 31, 2007, October 22, 2007, November 29, 2007, 
and February 8, 2008, respectively.
    On August 22, 2007, the Department determined that India, Sri 
Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and Philippines are countries comparable to 
the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron 
Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy to Mark Manning, Program 
Manager, Operations, NME unit, Office 4, ``Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Magnesium Metal From the PRC: Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries,'' dated August 22, 2007 (Office of Policy 
Surrogate Countries Memorandum). On September 6, 2007, the Petitioner 
requested that the Department conduct verification of the questionnaire 
responses submitted by respondent TMI in this administrative review.
    On September 7, 2007, the Department provided parties with an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information on surrogate 
countries and values for consideration in the preliminary results of 
review. On September 21, 2007, and September 28, 2007, we received 
comments from TMI and the Petitioner, respectively, in which they 
requested that the Department select India as the appropriate surrogate 
country in this review. In their comments, both TMI and the Petitioner 
argued that India (a) is at a comparable level of economic development 
with the PRC based on the gross national income (GNI); (b) is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, namely aluminum; and 
(c) the data necessary to calculate a dumping margin for a Chinese 
producer of magnesium metal are readily available in India. On October 
5, 2007, we received surrogate value information from the Petitioner 
and TMI. On October 15, 2007, and November 5, 2007, we received 
comments from the Petitioner rebutting certain surrogate value 
information submitted by TMI. On October 23, 2007, TMI submitted 
comments rebutting the Petitioner's surrogate value information. On 
February 12, 2008, the Petitioner submitted a request to assign a 
combination cash deposit rate to TMI and its supplier of subject 
merchandise in this administrative review.
    On December 12, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results of administrative review until February 29, 2008. 
See Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2006-2007 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 70567 (December 12, 
2007).

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.

Scope of Order

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium 
metal, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, 
regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. 
Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the 
element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw 
materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by 
recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium 
covered by this antidumping duty order includes blends of primary and 
secondary magnesium.
    The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium 
metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, 
without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, 
and other shapes, magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into 
raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other 
shapes: products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 
percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the 
United States as conforming to an ``ASTM Specification for Magnesium 
Alloy'' \1\ and thus are outside the scope of the existing antidumping 
orders on magnesium from the PRC (generally referred to as ``alloy'' 
magnesium).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The meaning of this term is the same as that used by the 
American Society for Testing and Materials in its Annual Book of 
ASTM Standards: Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of the antidumping duty order excludes the following 
merchandise: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical 
combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure 
magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, 
by weight, that do not conform to an ``ASTM Specification for Magnesium 
Alloy''; \2\ (2) magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and (3) 
mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder 
form, by weight, and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular 
materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, 
calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, 
carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, 
alumina (Al2O3), calcium aluminate, soda ash, 
hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, 
cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, 
dolomite lime, and colemanite.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This material is already covered by existing antidumping 
orders. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium from the 
People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; 
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium from the Russian 
Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995), and Antidumping Duty Order: 
Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of China, 
66 FR 57936 (November 19, 2001).
    \3\ This third exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures is 
based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000-2001 
investigations of magnesium from the PRC, Israel, and Russia. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium 
in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 
(September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); 
Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure 
Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 
2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys because they are not 
chemically combined in liquid form and cast into the same ingot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Non-Market-Economy (NME) Treatment

    The Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), any

[[Page 12124]]

determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect 
until revoked by the administering authority. See Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, (TRBs) From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 
(February 14, 2003), (unchanged in TRBs from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003)). None of the 
parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Therefore, for 
the preliminary results of review, we have treated the PRC as an NME 
country and applied our current NME methodology in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act.

Selection of a Surrogate Country

    When the Department analyzes imports from an NME country, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on 
the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs), valued in a surrogate 
market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the 
Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing 
the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that 
are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the 
NME country; and (2) significant producers of merchandise comparable to 
the subject merchandise.
    The Department has determined that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, 
Indonesia, and the Philippines are countries that are at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the PRC. See Office of 
Policy Surrogate Countries Memorandum. While none of these countries 
are significant producers of magnesium metal,\4\ India does have 
significant production of aluminum that is comparable to the production 
of magnesium metal with respect to factory overhead; selling, general, 
and administrative (SG&A) expenses; and profit. See Surrogate Country 
Memorandum at 5-6. Because India is at a comparable level of economic 
development, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and 
provides the best opportunity to use publicly available data to value 
the factors of production, the Department preliminarily determined that 
India is an appropriate surrogate country for the purposes of this 
administrative review. See Surrogate Country Memorandum at 7. The 
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal 
Value'' section below and in the Memorandum from Karine Gziryan, Senior 
Financial Analyst, through Mark Manning, Program Manager, to the File, 
``Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results,'' dated February 29, 
2008 (Surrogate Values Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, through Mark Manning, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, from Karine Gziryan, Financial Analyst, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, ``Administrative Review of Magnesium 
Metal from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate 
Country dated October 30, 2007,'' (Surrogate Country Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate

    A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all 
companies within an NME country are subject to government control and 
thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the 
Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise 
subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can 
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From 
the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). To 
establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government 
control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the 
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under 
a test arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 
20588, at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as further developed in 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 
(Silicon Carbide).
    The Department's separate-rate test determines whether the 
exporters are independent from government control and does not 
consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export 
licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these 
controls are imposed to prevent dumping. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 
(December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls over the 
investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757-61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).

Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by TMI supports a preliminary finding of de 
jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) An 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with TMI's business and 
export licenses; (2) the existence of applicable legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) the formal measures by 
the government decentralizing control of companies. In its responses, 
TMI stated that it is an independent legal entity and provided a copy 
of its business license that allows it to engage in the exportation of 
magnesium metal. TMI also reported that no export quotas apply to 
magnesium metal. The following laws, which were placed on the record of 
this review, also indicate a lack of de jure government control. The 
Company Law of the People's Republic of China, made effective on July 
1, 1994, states that a company is an enterprise legal person, that 
shareholders shall assume liability towards the company to the extent 
of its shareholdings, and that the company shall be liable for its 
debts to the extent of all its assets. TMI also provided copies of the 
Foreign Trade Law of the PRC, which identifies the rights and 
responsibilities of organizations engaged in foreign trade, grants 
autonomy to foreign-trade operators in management decisions, and 
establishes the foreign trade operator's accountability for profits and 
losses. Based on our analysis of the foregoing, the Department has 
preliminarily determined that there is an absence of de jure 
governmental control over the export activities of TMI.

[[Page 12125]]

Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its 
export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or are 
subject to the approval of, a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department considers an analysis of de facto 
control to be critical in determining whether a respondent is, in fact, 
subject to a degree of governmental control that would preclude the 
Department from assigning the respondent a separate rate.
    TMI has asserted that it: (1) Establishes its own export prices; 
(2) negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental 
entities or organizations; (3) makes its own personnel decisions; (4) 
retains the proceeds of its export sales and uses profits according to 
its business needs; and (5) has the authority to sell its assets and to 
obtain loans. The Department has analyzed the information placed on the 
record by TMI. Based upon its analysis, the Department has 
preliminarily determined that the information on the record supports 
TMI's assertion, and that there is an absence of de facto governmental 
control over the export activities of TMI. Because the Department has 
found that TMI operates free of de jure and de facto governmental 
control, it has preliminarily determined that TMI has met the criteria 
for receiving a separate rate.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether TMI's sales of the subject merchandise to the 
United States were made at a price below NV, we compared its U.S. price 
to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice.

United States Price

A. Export Price
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based TMI's U.S. 
price on export price (EP) because the first sales to unaffiliated 
purchasers were made prior to importation, and constructed export price 
was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated 
EP for TMI based on the prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP 
by deducting, where applicable, the following expenses from the 
starting price (gross unit price) charged to the first unaffiliated 
customer in the United States: foreign inland freight from the plant to 
the port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, international 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. customs 
duties, and inland freight incurred in the United States. See 
Memorandum from Karine Gziryan, Senior Financial Analyst, to the File, 
``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2006-2007 Administrative 
Review of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Tianjin 
Magnesium International Ltd.,'' dated February 29, 2008 (Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum).
B. Surrogate Values for Expenses Incurred in the PRC for U.S. Sales
    TMI reported that, for its U.S. sales, foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, and marine insurance were provided by 
NME vendors or paid for using an NME currency. We based the deduction 
of these charges on surrogate values. To value foreign inland freight 
and foreign brokerage and handling, we applied the same surrogate 
values used to value these expenses in NV. See Normal Value section 
below and Surrogate Values Memorandum. We valued marine insurance with 
a price quote from the website of RJG Consultants, a market-economy 
provider of marine insurance. See Surrogate Values Memorandum.
    For international freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. 
customs duties, TMI reported using market economy vendors and stated 
that these expenses were paid for in a market economy currency. Where 
movement services were provided by a market economy vendor and paid for 
in a market economy currency, we deducted the actual cost per metric 
ton of the expense. See Surrogate Values Memorandum.

Normal Value

A. Methodology
    Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME country and the available information does not permit the 
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or 
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. 
The Department uses an FOP methodology because the presence of 
government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its 
normal methodologies. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005) 
(unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-
2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 
(January 17, 2006 ).
    We calculated NV by adding together the value of the FOPs, general 
expenses, profit, and packing costs.\5\ Specifically, we valued 
material, labor, energy, and packing by multiplying the amount of the 
factor consumed in producing subject merchandise by the average unit 
surrogate value of the factor. In addition, we added freight costs to 
the surrogate costs that we calculated for material inputs. We 
calculated freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight rates by the 
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the 
factory that produced the subject merchandise or the distance from the 
nearest seaport to the factory that produced the subject merchandise, 
as appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We increased the 
calculated costs of the FOPs for surrogate general expenses and profit. 
See Surrogate Values Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We based the values of the FOPs on surrogate values (see 
Selected Surrogate Values section below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a producer sources an 
input from a market-economy country and pays for it in a market-economy 
currency, the Department will normally value the factor using the 
actual price paid for the input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also 
Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. 
Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to 
value certain FOPs). Where a portion of the input is purchased from a 
market-economy supplier and the

[[Page 12126]]

remainder from an NME supplier, the Department will normally use the 
price paid for the inputs sourced from market-economy suppliers to 
value all of the input, provided the volume of the market-economy 
inputs as a share of total purchases from all sources is 
``meaningful.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 
rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997); Shakeproof v. United States, 
268 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1).
B. Selected Surrogate Values
    In selecting surrogate values, we followed, to the extent 
practicable, the Department's practice of choosing public values which 
are non-export averages, representative of a range of prices in effect 
during the POR, or over a period as close as possible in time to the 
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). Where we could only obtain 
surrogate values that were not contemporaneous with the POR, we 
inflated (or deflated) the surrogate values using, where appropriate, 
the Indian Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as published in the 
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. 
See Surrogate Values Memorandum.
    In calculating surrogate values from import statistics, in 
accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded statistics 
for imports from NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly 
available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all 
exporters to all export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and 
Thailand). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See also 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television 
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 
(November 28, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the 
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally, 
we excluded from our calculations imports that were labeled as 
originating from an unspecified country because we could not determine 
whether they were from an NME country.
    We used the following surrogate values in our preliminary results 
of review (see Surrogate Values Memorandum for details). Except as 
noted below, we valued raw materials and packing materials using April 
2006 through March 2007 weighted-average Indian import values derived 
from the World Trade Atlas, online at https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm 
(WTA). The Indian import statistics that we obtained from the WTA were 
published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and 
Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce of India and are contemporaneous 
with the POR.
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per kilometer per kilogram 
average rate obtained from the Web site of an Indian transportation 
company, Infreight Technologies India Limited. See https://
www.infreight.com. We used two sources to calculate the surrogate value 
for domestic brokerage and handling expenses. We valued TMI's use of 
foreign brokerage and handling using a simple average of the public 
version of the brokerage and handling expenses reported by Agro Dutch 
Industries Ltd., in an administrative review of preserved mushrooms 
from India, and by Kejriwal Paper Ltd., in an administrative review of 
certain lined paper products from India. See Agro Dutch Industries 
Ltd.'s section A-D submission, dated May 24, 2005, at Exhibit B-1 (see 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006)). See the 
section C submission from Kejriwal Paper Ltd., dated January 9, 2006, 
at Exhibit C-2, used in Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and 
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in 
Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 
2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006)). 
Because these data were not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted 
them for inflation using the Indian WPI. See Surrogate Values 
Memorandum.
    To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from 
International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes--Quarterly 
Statistics (First Quarter 2003), adjusted for inflation. See Surrogate 
Values Memorandum.
    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued direct, indirect, 
and packing labor, using the most recently calculated regression-based 
wage rate, which relies on 2004 data. This wage rate can currently be 
found on the Department's Web site on Import Administration's home 
page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised 
in January 2007, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. 
The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's web 
site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics, ILO, Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not 
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, 
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of 
labor reported by TMI.
    Lastly, we valued SG&A expenses, factory overhead costs, and profit 
using the 2006-2007 financial statements of two Indian producers of 
comparable merchandise, namely aluminum: Hindalco Industries Ltd., and 
National Aluminum Company Ltd. From this information, we were able to 
determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, 
labor and energy (``ML&E'') costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus 
overhead (i.e., cost of manufacture); and profit as a percentage of the 
cost of manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate Values Memorandum.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 
submit publicly available information with which to value FOPs in the 
final results of review within 20 days after the date of publication of 
the preliminary results of review.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 
These exchange rates can be accessed at the Web site of Import 
Administration at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.

[[Page 12127]]

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for TMI 
during the period April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007:

                      Magnesium Metal From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                      Company                          Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd...........               17.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose the calculations used in our analysis 
to parties to this administrative review within five days of the date 
of publication of this notice. Case briefs from interested parties may 
be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 
this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a 
statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. The 
Department also requests that interested parties provide a summary of 
the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited. The Department requests that parties 
submitting written comments also provide the Department with an 
additional copy of those comments on diskette.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties 
who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, 
must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of 
issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 
hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs.
    The Department will issue the final results of this review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of the final results of review. If the 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the 
Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will 
calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates based on the 
ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. We will 
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate 
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of 
the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, 
the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of 
this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit 
will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and 
non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recently completed review; (3) for all PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 
141.49 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied 
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213, and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: February 29, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-4416 Filed 3-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P