Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 26247-26252 [2011-11122]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2011 / Notices
ferrovanadium was more stable during
2010, and provides reasonable support
for AMG Vanadium’s contention that
the value of processing vanadium
pentoxide into ferrovanadium may be
considered minor or insignificant for
purposes of initiating this
anticircumvention inquiry. At the same
time, we acknowledge the Evraz Group’s
comments regarding the use of this
pricing information and an alternative,
cost-based comparison methodology for
determining whether the value of
processing vanadium pentoxide into
ferrovanadium in the United States is
minor or insignificant. We will consider
this issue further during our
anticircumvention inquiry.
With respect to the value of the
merchandise produced in Russia, AMG
Vanadium relied on the information and
arguments in the ‘‘minor or insignificant
process’’ portion of its
anticircumvention request to indicate
that the value of the Russian vanadium
pentoxide is significant relative to the
total value of finished ferrovanadium
sold in the United States. We find that
this information adequately meets the
requirements of this factor, as discussed
above.
Finally, AMG Vanadium argued that
the Department should also consider the
pattern of trade, affiliation, and
subsequent import volume as factors in
determining whether to initiate the
anticircumvention inquiry. The import
volume data submitted by AMG
Vanadium indicates that vanadium
pentoxide imports from Russia have
increased significantly in recent years,
while imports of ferrovanadium from
Russia ceased within a few years after
imposition of the antidumping duty
order. In addition, AMG Vanadium
provided information suggesting that
the Evraz Group, through its various
affiliates, is managing the importation of
vanadium pentoxide from Russia, the
processing of this vanadium pentoxide
into ferrovanadium in the United States,
and the sale of the ferrovanadium in the
United States, which together reflect an
intention to shift to the United States
completion of merchandise subject to
the order on ferrovanadium from Russia.
Accordingly, we are initiating an
anticircumvention inquiry concerning
the antidumping duty order on
ferrovanadium from Russia, pursuant to
section 781(a) of the Act. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the
Department issues a preliminary
affirmative determination, we will then
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to suspend liquidation and
require a cash deposit of estimated
duties, at the applicable rate, for each
unliquidated entry of the merchandise
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 May 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
at issue, entered or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption on or after
the date of initiation of the inquiry.
The Department is focusing its
analysis of the significance of the
ferrovanadium production process in
the United States based on the entries of
vanadium pentoxide produced in Russia
by OAO Vanady-Tula that are imported
by or consigned to any company in the
Evraz Group, as discussed in the AMG
Request and about which sufficient
information to initiate an
anticircumvention inquiry has been
provided. If the Department receives a
request from an interested party
regarding potential circumvention by
other companies involved in processing
Russian vanadium pentoxide into
ferrovanadium in the United States
within sufficient time, we will consider
conducting the inquiries concurrently.
The Department will, following
consultation with interested parties,
establish a schedule for questionnaires
and comments on the issues. The
Department intends to issue its final
determination within 300 days of the
date of publication of this initiation
consistent with section 781(f) of the Act.
This notice is published in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f).
Dated: May 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–11121 Filed 5–5–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
26247
Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave,
NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone:
202–482–4877; Fax: 202–482–5665;
e-mail: todd.delelle@trade.gov.) This
meeting is physically accessible to
people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
OEEI at (202) 482–5225 no less than one
week prior to the meeting.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is the
first meeting of the newly appointed
committee. The meeting will take place
from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. This meeting
is open to the public and time will be
permitted for public comment from
3–3:30 p.m. Written comments
concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome
any time before or after the meeting.
Minutes will be available within 30
days of this meeting.
Background: The ETTAC is mandated
by Public Law 103–392. It was created
to advise the U.S. government on
environmental trade policies and
programs, and to help it to focus its
resources on increasing the exports of
the U.S. environmental industry.
ETTAC operates as an advisory
committee to the Secretary of Commerce
and the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee (TPCC). ETTAC was
originally chartered in May of 1994. It
was most recently re-chartered until
October 2012.
Edward A. O’Malley,
Director, Office of Energy and Environmental
Industries.
[FR Doc. 2011–11051 Filed 5–5–11; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
International Trade Administration
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Environmental Technologies Trade
Advisory Committee Public Meeting
International Trade
Administration, DOC.
ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory
Committee Meeting.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
schedule and proposed agenda of a
meeting of the Environmental
Technologies Trade Advisory
Committee (ETTAC).
DATES: The meeting is scheduled for
Thursday, June 16, 2011, at 9 a.m.
Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in
Room 4830 at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Herbert Clark Hoover
Building, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Todd DeLelle, Office of Energy &
Environmental Industries (OEEI),
International Trade Administration,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
International Trade Administration
[A–821–819]
Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely
requests, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on magnesium
metal from the Russian Federation for
the period of review (POR) April 1,
2009, through March 31, 2010. The
review covers two respondents, PSC
VSMPO–AVISMA Corporation
(AVISMA) and Solikamsk Magnesium
Works (SMW).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
26248
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2011 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
The Department preliminarily
determines that AVISMA did not make
sales to the United States at less than
normal value. If these preliminary
results are adopted in the final results
of this administrative review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess no
antidumping duties on entries by
AVISMA during the POR. SMW
reported that it had no shipments to the
United States during the POR. The
preliminary results are listed below in
the section titled ‘‘Preliminary Results of
Review.’’
DATES: Effective Date: May 6, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hermes Pinilla 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) 482–3477 or (202) 482–
1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the
antidumping duty order on magnesium
metal from the Russian Federation on
April 15, 2005. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium
Metal From the Russian Federation, 70
FR 19930 (April 15, 2005). On April 1,
2010, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of
the order on magnesium metal from the
Russian Federation. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75
FR 16426 (April 1, 2010). On April 30,
2010, U.S. Magnesium Corporation LLC,
the petitioner in this proceeding,
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review with respect to
AVISMA and SMW, both Russian
Federation producers of the subject
merchandise. On May 28, 2010, the
Department published a notice of
initiation of an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
magnesium metal from the Russian
Federation for the period April 1, 2009,
through March 31, 2010. See Initiation
of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR
29976 (May 28, 2010).
We have extended the deadline for
the preliminary results of this
administrative review from December
31, 2010, to April 30, 2011.1 See
1 Because April 30, 2011 falls on a Saturday, it is
the Department’s practice to issue a determination
the next business day when the statutory deadline
falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or any other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 May 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
78968 (December 17, 2010), and
Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
12938 (March 9, 2011).
We are conducting this review in
accordance with section 751 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order 2
The merchandise covered by the order
is magnesium metal (also referred to as
magnesium), which includes primary
and secondary pure and 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 the
order includes blends of primary and
secondary magnesium.
The subject merchandise includes the
following pure and alloy magnesium
metal products made from primary and/
or secondary magnesium, including,
without limitation, magnesium cast into
ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other
shapes, and magnesium ground,
chipped, crushed, or machined into
raspings, granules, turnings, chips,
powder, briquettes, and other shapes:
(1) Products that contain at least 99.95
percent magnesium, by weight
(generally referred to as ‘‘ultra-pure’’
magnesium); (2) products that contain
less than 99.95 percent but not less than
99.8 percent magnesium, by weight
(generally referred to as ‘‘pure’’
magnesium); and (3) chemical
combinations of magnesium and other
material(s) in which the magnesium
content is 50 percent or greater, but less
that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or
not conforming to an ‘‘ASTM
Specification for Magnesium Alloy.’’
day when the Department is closed. See Notice of
Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’
Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended, 70
FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Accordingly, the deadline
for completion of the preliminary results is May 2,
2011.
2 On March 10, 2011, the Department revoked the
order, effective April 15, 2010. See Magnesium
Metal From the Russian Federation: Revocation of
Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Five-Year
Sunset Review, 76 FR 13128 (March 10, 2011). This
review covers merchandise that entered the United
States for consumption during the POR which met
the description of the scope of the order.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The scope of the order excludes: (1)
Magnesium that is in liquid or molten
form; and (2) 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 magnesiumbased reagent mixtures, including lime,
calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium
carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag
coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite,
feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium
aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons,
graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth
metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly
ash, magnesium oxide, periclase,
ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and
colemanite.3
The merchandise subject to the order
is currently classifiable under items
8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and
8104.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise covered by the order is
dispositive. See id.
SMW
On June 8, 2010, SMW submitted a
letter indicating that it made no sales of
the subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. We have not
received any comments on SMW’s
submission. We examined SMW’s claim
of no shipments by issuing a ‘‘No
Shipments Inquiry’’ to CBP and by
reviewing electronic CBP data. See
Memorandum to the File entitled
‘‘Magnesium Metal from the Russian
Federation—Request for U.S. Entry
Documents,’’ dated October 27, 2010.
Based on our review of the electronic
CBP data, we found that there were
entries of subject merchandise produced
by SMW to the United States during the
POR. On November 29, 2010, we
requested clarification from SMW on
the entries we found in the electronic
CBP data. On December 8, 2010, SMW
filed a response indicating that the
shipments in question were made by a
third party which resold the subject
3 This second exclusion for magnesium-based
reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for
reagent mixtures in the 2001 investigations of
magnesium from the People’s Republic of China,
Israel, and the Russian Federation. See Notice of
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), Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium
From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001), and
Notice of 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.
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2011 / Notices
merchandise produced by SMW to the
United States without the specific
knowledge of SMW. Thus, according to
SMW, it had no knowledge of or
involvement in the importation of
magnesium metal into the United States
during the POR. See SMW’s response to
the Department’s inquiry dated
December 8, 2010. Based on the
information SMW provided on the
record, we find that SMW did not have
knowledge of exports or involvement in
imports of magnesium metal into the
United States during the POR. Thus, we
did not request SMW to report such
sales to the Department for purposes of
calculating a dumping margin in this
administrative review.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Affiliated-Party Sales
Based on information on the record,
we preliminarily determined that
AVISMA is affiliated with one of its
home-market customers. See
memorandum entitled ‘‘Magnesium
Metal from the Russian Federation:
Affiliation Analysis’’ dated March 30,
2011. As a result, we requested that
AVISMA respond to our June 7, 2010,
questionnaire concerning sales of the
foreign like product by AVISMA’s
home-market customer to its
unaffiliated home-market customers.
See the Department’s letter to AVISMA
dated March 31, 2011. On April 14,
2011, we received a response from
AVISMA indicating that the homemarket customer in question consumed
all of the magnesium metal it purchased
from AVISMA during the POR. Thus,
according to AVISMA, it does not have
any downstream sales to report to the
Department. See AVISMA’s response to
the Department’s request for affiliatedparty sales dated April 14, 2011. Based
on this information, we preliminarily
find that no further action is required
with respect to AVISMA’s affiliatedparty sales regarding the home-market
customer in question. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement
of Final Determination: Magnesium
Metal From the Russian Federation, 69
FR 59197, 59200 (October 4, 2004),
unchanged in Magnesium Metal from
the Russian Federation: Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 70 FR 9041 (February 24,
2005).
Constructed Export Price
AVISMA identified all of its sales to
the United States as constructed export
price (CEP) sales because the U.S. sales
were made on behalf of AVISMA by
AVISMA’s U.S. affiliate, VSMPO-Tirus,
U.S., Inc. (Tirus US), to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 May 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
AVISMA and Tirus US are affiliated
because Tirus US is a wholly owned
subsidiary of AVISMA. See section
771(33)(E) of the Act. U.S. sales to the
first unaffiliated party were made in the
United States by the U.S. affiliate, thus
satisfying the legal requirements for
considering these transactions to be CEP
sales. See section 772(b) of the Act.
We calculated CEP based on the
packed, C.I.F. price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the
Act, we made deductions from price for
movement expenses and discounts,
where appropriate. More specifically,
we deducted early-payment discounts,
expenses for Russian railway freight
from plant to port, freight insurance,
Russian brokerage, handling and port
charges, international freight and
marine insurance, U.S. customs duties,
U.S. brokerage, handling, and port
charges, U.S. warehousing, and U.S.
inland freight.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act, we deducted direct selling
expenses and indirect selling expenses
related to commercial activity in the
United States. See also Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, Vol. 1 (1994) at
823–824. Pursuant to sections 772(d)(3)
and 772(f) of the Act, we made an
adjustment for CEP profit allocated to
expenses deducted under section
772(d)(1) of the Act. In accordance with
section 772(f) of the Act, we computed
profit based on the total revenues
realized on sales in both the U.S. and
home markets, less all expenses
associated with those sales. We then
allocated profit to expenses incurred
with respect to U.S. economic activity
based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses
to total expenses for both the U.S. and
home markets. See AVISMA
Preliminary Results Analysis
Memorandum dated May 2, 2011
(Preliminary Analysis Memo).
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the
aggregate quantity of home-market and
U.S. sales and absent any information
that a particular market situation in the
exporting country did not permit a
proper comparison, we determined that
the quantity of foreign like product sold
by AVISMA in the exporting country
was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States under
section 773(a) of the Act. AVISMA’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)
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26249
of the Act, we considered basing 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 and, to
the extent practicable, at the same level
of trade as the CEP sales.
In accordance with section 771(16)(A)
of the Act, we considered all products
produced by AVISMA that are covered
by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the
Order’’ section, above, and that were
sold in the home market during the POR
to be foreign like products for purposes
of determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance
with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the
Act, where there were no sales of
identical merchandise in the home
market to compare to U.S. sales, we
considered comparing U.S. sales to the
most similar foreign like product on the
basis of the product characteristics we
determined to be the most appropriate
for purposes of matching products.
Cost of Production Analysis
We disregarded below-cost sales in
accordance with section 773(b) of the
Act in the last completed review with
respect to AVISMA in which it
participated as of the date of initiation
of this review. See Magnesium Metal
from the Russian Federation: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 52642,
52643 (September 10, 2008). Therefore,
we have 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 conducted a
COP investigation of sales by AVISMA
in the home market.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated a weightedaverage COP based on the sum of the
cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product plus amounts for
home-market selling, general and
administrative expenses, interest
expense, and packing expenses.
During the POR, AVISMA used two
different accounting methodologies in
its normal books and records to
determine the costs of raw magnesium.
AVISMA treated raw magnesium as a
by-product in its normal books and
records during the period April 1
through December 31, 2009. Raw
magnesium and chlorine gas are
produced jointly during the third major
processing step, the electrolysis stage
(i.e., the split-off point), during which
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
26250
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2011 / Notices
both products become identifiable
physically. AVISMA’s calculation of the
by-product value for raw magnesium
started with the total sales value of
finished goods produced. It reduced this
amount by the budgeted profit, selling
expenses, and post-split-off costs.
Because AVISMA considers the
remaining amount to represent the total
net realizable value (NRV) of raw
magnesium, it used this value as the
offset for raw magnesium in calculating
a total NRV for chlorine gas for its
response to our questionnaire.
On January 1, 2010, AVISMA revised
its accounting methodology in its
normal books and records and began to
treat chlorine gas as a by-product of raw
magnesium. AVISMA’s calculation of
the by-product value for chlorine gas
was based on the budgeted cost of
production of AVISMA’s new
gasification plant. AVISMA valued
chlorine gas at the estimated cost of
liquid chlorine plus estimated
transportation and gasification costs at
its new facility. AVISMA then deducted
the total estimated value of chlorine gas
from the total joint costs and assigned
the remaining joint costs to raw
magnesium.
For reporting purposes in this
administrative review, AVISMA
departed from its normal books and
records and relied instead on the
Department’s calculation methodology
in Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010)
(Preliminary Results 08–09 Review). See
also Memorandum entitled ‘‘Cost of
Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results—PSC VSMPO–
AVISMA Corporation and VSMPO—
Tirus US Inc.’’’ dated May 7, 2010
(Preliminary Results 08–09 Review Cost
Memo); the Department followed the
same methodology in Magnesium Metal
From the Russian Federation: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989
(September 17, 2010) (Final Results 08–
09 Review).
As such, AVISMA considered
chlorine gas and market-quality raw
magnesium produced jointly at the
split-off point as co-products. For the
purpose of allocating the split-off-point
joint costs to the co-products, AVISMA
used the NRV of chlorine gas as
calculated by the Department in the
Final Results 08–09 Review. See
Attachment 5 of the Preliminary Results
08–09 Review Cost Memo.
In accordance with section
773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, we have
examined both accounting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 May 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
methodologies employed by AVISMA in
its normal books and records during the
POR. We agree with AVISMA that for
purposes of this review it is proper to
depart from AVISMA’s normal books
and records for the period April 1
through December 31, 2009. See
Memorandum entitled ‘‘Cost of
Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results—PSC VMPSO–
AVIMSA Corporation and VSMPO—
Tirus, U.S. Inc.,’’ dated May 2, 2011
(Preliminary Results 09–10 Review Cost
Memo). We have accepted AVISMA’s
reported costs for the period April 1
through December 31, 2009, for the sake
of maintaining consistency with the
prior segments of this proceeding. In the
previous review, we also deviated from
AVISMA’s normal books and records
(which considered raw magnesium to be
a by-product of the joint process) and
used the same co-product approach in
allocating joint costs to raw magnesium
and chlorine gas as reported by
AVISMA for the first nine months of the
instant POR (April 1 through December
31, 2009). See, e.g., Preliminary Results
08–09 Review, 75 FR at 26925
(unchanged in Final Results 08–09
Review).
As explained in the Preliminary
Results 09–10 Review Cost Memo, we
find AVISMA’s new methodology to be
a reasonable reflection of the costs
associated with the production of the
subject merchandise. Therefore, for
these preliminary results, we have
recalculated AVISMA’s costs of raw
magnesium and chlorine gas for the
period January 1 through March 31,
2010, to reflect AVISMA’s normal books
and records as instructed by section
773(f)(1)(A) of the Act.
We have calculated the weightedaverage COP using the costs of the final
products for the period April 1 through
December 31, 2009, and the costs of the
final products for the period January 1
through March 31, 2010, in order to
determine the weighted-average per-unit
costs of the merchandise under
consideration. See Preliminary Results
09–10 Review Cost Memo.
We have not considered the
comments filed by the petitioner on
April 20, 2011, in our analysis of
AVISMA’s reported costs for these
preliminary results because of the lack
of time between the date of the
petitioner’s filing and the statutory
deadline for completion of the
preliminary results. With less than two
weeks between the submission of the
comments and the fully extended
statutory deadline for issuing these
preliminary results, we could not ensure
full participation by all parties in the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
process of determining whether
sufficient information is on the record to
apply the proposed analysis. We will
consider the petitioner’s comments
carefully for the final results of this
review and we invite comments from
the parties concerning the implications
of applying the petitioner’s proposed
analysis for the purposes of this review
(e.g., what to use for constructed value
in the event we must rely on one of the
alternative methods described in section
773(e)(2)(B) of the Act). Such comments
should be filed in accordance with the
schedule for filing case briefs as
discussed in the ‘‘Disclosure and Public
Comment’’ section below.
We also revised AVISMA’s reported
net interest expense ratio to exclude that
portion of the reported interest income
offset related to loans receivable.
AVISMA’s auditor could not determine
that the carrying value of AVISMA’s
loans receivable was reasonable. As
such, we cannot determine whether the
interest income calculated by AVISMA
based on the value of the loans
receivable is a reasonable reflection of
the actual interest received. Therefore,
we have disallowed the offset for this
interest income because we cannot
conclude that the value of the reported
interest income offset related to loans
receivable is reasonable. See id.
After calculating the COP and 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 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,
discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to
section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when
less than 20 percent of a respondent’s
sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we do 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 a respondent’s sales
of a given product were at prices less
than the COP, we disregard the belowcost sales because they were made in
substantial quantities within an
extended period of time pursuant to
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act
and because, based on comparisons of
prices to weighted-average COPs for the
POR, such 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
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2011 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
disregarded certain home market sales
of magnesium metal because such sales
did not pass the cost test. See
Preliminary Analysis Memo.
Level of Trade
In the U.S. market, AVISMA made
CEP sales. In the case of CEP sales, we
identified the level of trade based on the
price after the deduction of expenses
and profit under section 772(d) of the
Act. Although the starting price for CEP
sales was based on sales made by the
affiliated reseller to unaffiliated
customers through two channels of
distribution, sales to end-users and
distributors, AVISMA reported similar
selling activities associated with all
sales to the affiliated reseller (i.e., at the
CEP level of trade).
AVISMA reported one channel of
distribution in the home market, sales to
end-users. We found that this channel of
distribution constitutes a single level of
trade in the home market. To determine
whether home market sales were made
at a different level of trade than U.S.
sales, we examined stages in the
marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated
customer. We found that there were
significant differences between the
selling activities associated with the
CEP level of trade and those associated
with the home market level of trade and,
thus, we found the CEP level of trade to
be different from the home market level
of trade. Further, we found the CEP
level of trade to be at a less advanced
stage of distribution than the home
market level of trade.
Because AVISMA reported no home
market levels of trade that were
equivalent to the CEP level of trade and
because we determined that the CEP
level of trade was at a less advanced
stage than the single home market level
of trade, we were unable to determine
a level-of-trade adjustment based on the
respondent’s home market sales of the
foreign like product. Furthermore, we
have no other information that provides
an appropriate basis for determining a
level-of-trade adjustment. For
AVISMA’s CEP sales, we made a CEPoffset adjustment in accordance with
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For a
description of our level-of-trade analysis
for these preliminary results, see
Preliminary Analysis Memo.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary
results and in accordance with section
773A of the Act, we made currency
conversions based on the official
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 May 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
26251
Reserve Bank of New York. See 19 CFR
351.415.
hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Preliminary Results of Review
Import Administration, U.S. Department
As a result of our review, we
of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30
preliminarily determine that the
days of the date of publication of this
following weighted-average dumping
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests
margins on magnesium metal from the
should contain (1) the party’s name,
Russian Federation exist for the period
address, and telephone number, (2) the
April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010:
number of participants, and (3) a list of
the issues to be discussed. At the
Margin
hearing, each party may make an
Manufacturer/exporter
(percent)
affirmative presentation only on issues
raised in that party’s case brief and may
PSC VSMPO–AVISMA Corporation .................................
0.00 make rebuttal presentations only on
Solikamsk Magnesium Works ..
* arguments included in that party’s
* No shipments or sales subject to this re- rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
view. The firm has an individual rate from the
last segment of the proceeding in which the
firm had shipments or sales.
Disclosure and Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the
Department will disclose to any party to
the proceeding the calculations
performed in connection with these
preliminary results within five days
after the date of publication of this
notice. Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results of
this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c), case briefs or other written
comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration. Interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which
must be limited to issues raised in the
case briefs, may be filed not later than
35 days after the date of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this review are
requested to submit with each argument
(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument with an
electronic version included. A list of
authorities used and an executive
summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department.
This summary should be limited to five
pages total, including footnotes.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310,
we will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments
raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If
requested, a hearing will be held two
days after the deadline for submission of
the rebuttal briefs at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
location to be determined. Parties
should confirm by telephone the date,
time, and location of the hearing two
days before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated an importer-specific
assessment rate for AVISMA reflecting
these preliminary results of review.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will
apply to entries of subject merchandise
during the POR produced by AVISMA
or SMW for which AVISMA or SMW
did not know their merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries of
merchandise produced by AVISMA or
SMW at the all-others rate if there is no
rate for the intermediate company(ies)
involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May
6, 2003).
The Department intends to issue
liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days
after the publication of the final results
of review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
Because we revoked the order
effective April 15, 2010, no cash
deposits for estimated antidumping
duties are required.
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
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
26252
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2011 / Notices
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
The preliminary results of this
administrative review and this notice
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: May 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–11122 Filed 5–5–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
that require emergency action under
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the Council’s intent to take
final action to address the emergency.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms.
Carolyn Porter at (503) 820–2280 at least
5 days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: May 3, 2011.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[FR Doc. 2011–11104 Filed 5–5–11; 8:45 am]
including (but not limited to): AP
Performance Report, Ecosystem
Subcommittee activities, 2011 National
SSC Workshop program development,
University of Maryland MSE Study,
Surfclam Ocean Quahog Excessive
Share Project, and ACL/AM Working
Group recommendations.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during this meeting. Action will
be restricted to those issues specifically
listed in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the Council’s intent to take
final action to address the emergency.
RIN 0648–XA416
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Pacific Fishery Management Council;
Public Meeting
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Special Accommodations
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
The meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to M.
Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic
Council Office, (302) 526–5251, at least
5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Pacific Council)
will convene a Sardine Research
Planning Workshop that is open to the
public.
DATES: The meeting will be held
Monday, May 23, 2011 through
Tuesday, May 24, 2011. Business will
begin each day at 8 a.m., and conclude
each day at 5 p.m. or until business for
the day is completed.
ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held
at Best Western Inn by the Sea, 7830 Fay
Avenue, La Jolla, CA 92037.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer; telephone:
(503) 820–2280.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
objectives of the Workshop are to:
(1) Develop a coordinated synoptic
sardine survey plan designed to
compare the results of abundance
estimates developed from different
survey methods; (2) Improve
collaborative research opportunities and
coordination between the sardine
industry and NMFS; and (3) Develop a
proposed survey budget, timeframe,
Principal Investigators, and operational
requirements.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during this meeting. Action will
be restricted to those issues specifically
listed in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 May 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
RIN 0648–XA414
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) of the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (Council)
Meeting.
DATES: The meeting will be held
Wednesday, May 25, 2011 from 9 a.m.
until 5 p.m. and Thursday, May 26,
2011 from 8 a.m. until 12 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South
Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231;
telephone: (410) 522–7377.
Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 800 N. State
Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901;
telephone: (302) 674–2331.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher M. Moore PhD, Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 800 N. State
Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901;
telephone: (302) 526–5255.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
primary purpose of the meeting is to
develop ABC recommendations for the
Council for Atlantic mackerel,
butterfish, Loligo and Illex Squids for
2012 (potentially multi-year
specifications for some species). In
addition, an update on activities
relevant to the SSC will be given
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: May 3, 2011.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–11103 Filed 5–5–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XA415
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council will convene a
meeting of the Vessel Monitoring
System (VMS) Advisory Panel.
DATES: The meeting will convene at
12 noon on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 and
conclude by 1 p.m. on Wednesday, May
25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite
1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone:
(813) 348–1630.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26247-26252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11122]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-821-819]
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the Russian Federation
for the period of review (POR) April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.
The review covers two respondents, PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation
(AVISMA) and Solikamsk Magnesium Works (SMW).
[[Page 26248]]
The Department preliminarily determines that AVISMA did not make
sales to the United States at less than normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess no antidumping duties on entries by AVISMA
during the POR. SMW reported that it had no shipments to the United
States during the POR. The preliminary results are listed below in the
section titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.''
DATES: Effective Date: May 6, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla 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-
3477 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the antidumping duty order on magnesium
metal from the Russian Federation on April 15, 2005. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation, 70
FR 19930 (April 15, 2005). On April 1, 2010, the Department published
in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the order on magnesium metal from the Russian
Federation. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,
75 FR 16426 (April 1, 2010). On April 30, 2010, U.S. Magnesium
Corporation LLC, the petitioner in this proceeding, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review with respect to AVISMA and
SMW, both Russian Federation producers of the subject merchandise. On
May 28, 2010, the Department published a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal
from the Russian Federation for the period April 1, 2009, through March
31, 2010. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 29976 (May 28, 2010).
We have extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this
administrative review from December 31, 2010, to April 30, 2011.\1\ See
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Extension of Time Limit
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75
FR 78968 (December 17, 2010), and Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 12938 (March 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because April 30, 2011 falls on a Saturday, it is the
Department's practice to issue a determination the next business day
when the statutory deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or
any other day when the Department is closed. See Notice of
Clarification: Application of ``Next Business Day'' Rule for
Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of
1930, as Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Accordingly, the
deadline for completion of the preliminary results is May 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On March 10, 2011, the Department revoked the order,
effective April 15, 2010. See Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Five-
Year Sunset Review, 76 FR 13128 (March 10, 2011). This review covers
merchandise that entered the United States for consumption during
the POR which met the description of the scope of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The merchandise covered by the order is magnesium metal (also
referred to as magnesium), which includes primary and secondary pure
and 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 the order includes blends of primary
and secondary magnesium.
The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy
magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium,
including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs,
rounds, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped,
crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder,
briquettes, and other shapes: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95
percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as ``ultra-pure''
magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not
less than 99.8 percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as
``pure'' magnesium); and (3) chemical combinations of magnesium and
other material(s) in which the magnesium content is 50 percent or
greater, but less that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or not
conforming to an ``ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy.''
The scope of the order excludes: (1) Magnesium that is in liquid or
molten form; and (2) 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 (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash,
hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal,
cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys,
dolomite lime, and colemanite.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This second exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures
is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2001
investigations of magnesium from the People's Republic of China,
Israel, and the Russian Federation. See Notice of 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), Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September
27, 2001), and Notice of 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 the order is currently classifiable
under items 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and 8104.90.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the merchandise covered by the order is
dispositive. See id.
SMW
On June 8, 2010, SMW submitted a letter indicating that it made no
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
We have not received any comments on SMW's submission. We examined
SMW's claim of no shipments by issuing a ``No Shipments Inquiry'' to
CBP and by reviewing electronic CBP data. See Memorandum to the File
entitled ``Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation--Request for
U.S. Entry Documents,'' dated October 27, 2010. Based on our review of
the electronic CBP data, we found that there were entries of subject
merchandise produced by SMW to the United States during the POR. On
November 29, 2010, we requested clarification from SMW on the entries
we found in the electronic CBP data. On December 8, 2010, SMW filed a
response indicating that the shipments in question were made by a third
party which resold the subject
[[Page 26249]]
merchandise produced by SMW to the United States without the specific
knowledge of SMW. Thus, according to SMW, it had no knowledge of or
involvement in the importation of magnesium metal into the United
States during the POR. See SMW's response to the Department's inquiry
dated December 8, 2010. Based on the information SMW provided on the
record, we find that SMW did not have knowledge of exports or
involvement in imports of magnesium metal into the United States during
the POR. Thus, we did not request SMW to report such sales to the
Department for purposes of calculating a dumping margin in this
administrative review.
Affiliated-Party Sales
Based on information on the record, we preliminarily determined
that AVISMA is affiliated with one of its home-market customers. See
memorandum entitled ``Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation:
Affiliation Analysis'' dated March 30, 2011. As a result, we requested
that AVISMA respond to our June 7, 2010, questionnaire concerning sales
of the foreign like product by AVISMA's home-market customer to its
unaffiliated home-market customers. See the Department's letter to
AVISMA dated March 31, 2011. On April 14, 2011, we received a response
from AVISMA indicating that the home-market customer in question
consumed all of the magnesium metal it purchased from AVISMA during the
POR. Thus, according to AVISMA, it does not have any downstream sales
to report to the Department. See AVISMA's response to the Department's
request for affiliated-party sales dated April 14, 2011. Based on this
information, we preliminarily find that no further action is required
with respect to AVISMA's affiliated-party sales regarding the home-
market customer in question. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination:
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation, 69 FR 59197, 59200
(October 4, 2004), unchanged in Magnesium Metal from the Russian
Federation: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 70 FR 9041 (February 24, 2005).
Constructed Export Price
AVISMA identified all of its sales to the United States as
constructed export price (CEP) sales because the U.S. sales were made
on behalf of AVISMA by AVISMA's U.S. affiliate, VSMPO-Tirus, U.S., Inc.
(Tirus US), to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. AVISMA and
Tirus US are affiliated because Tirus US is a wholly owned subsidiary
of AVISMA. See section 771(33)(E) of the Act. U.S. sales to the first
unaffiliated party were made in the United States by the U.S.
affiliate, thus satisfying the legal requirements for considering these
transactions to be CEP sales. See section 772(b) of the Act.
We calculated CEP based on the packed, C.I.F. price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)
of the Act, we made deductions from price for movement expenses and
discounts, where appropriate. More specifically, we deducted early-
payment discounts, expenses for Russian railway freight from plant to
port, freight insurance, Russian brokerage, handling and port charges,
international freight and marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S.
brokerage, handling, and port charges, U.S. warehousing, and U.S.
inland freight.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted direct
selling expenses and indirect selling expenses related to commercial
activity in the United States. See also Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No.
103-316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 823-824. Pursuant to sections 772(d)(3) and
772(f) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit allocated to
expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) of the Act. In accordance
with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total
revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all
expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and
home markets. See AVISMA Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum dated
May 2, 2011 (Preliminary Analysis Memo).
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and
U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market
situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison,
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by AVISMA
in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison
with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States under
section 773(a) of the Act. AVISMA'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
considered basing 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 and, to
the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the CEP sales.
In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by AVISMA that are covered by the description in the
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and that were sold in the home
market during the POR to be foreign like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In
accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to
U.S. sales, we considered comparing U.S. sales to the most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the product characteristics we
determined to be the most appropriate for purposes of matching
products.
Cost of Production Analysis
We disregarded below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b)
of the Act in the last completed review with respect to AVISMA in which
it participated as of the date of initiation of this review. See
Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52642, 52643 (September
10, 2008). Therefore, we have 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 conducted a COP investigation of sales by AVISMA in the
home market.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product plus amounts for home-market
selling, general and administrative expenses, interest expense, and
packing expenses.
During the POR, AVISMA used two different accounting methodologies
in its normal books and records to determine the costs of raw
magnesium. AVISMA treated raw magnesium as a by-product in its normal
books and records during the period April 1 through December 31, 2009.
Raw magnesium and chlorine gas are produced jointly during the third
major processing step, the electrolysis stage (i.e., the split-off
point), during which
[[Page 26250]]
both products become identifiable physically. AVISMA's calculation of
the by-product value for raw magnesium started with the total sales
value of finished goods produced. It reduced this amount by the
budgeted profit, selling expenses, and post-split-off costs. Because
AVISMA considers the remaining amount to represent the total net
realizable value (NRV) of raw magnesium, it used this value as the
offset for raw magnesium in calculating a total NRV for chlorine gas
for its response to our questionnaire.
On January 1, 2010, AVISMA revised its accounting methodology in
its normal books and records and began to treat chlorine gas as a by-
product of raw magnesium. AVISMA's calculation of the by-product value
for chlorine gas was based on the budgeted cost of production of
AVISMA's new gasification plant. AVISMA valued chlorine gas at the
estimated cost of liquid chlorine plus estimated transportation and
gasification costs at its new facility. AVISMA then deducted the total
estimated value of chlorine gas from the total joint costs and assigned
the remaining joint costs to raw magnesium.
For reporting purposes in this administrative review, AVISMA
departed from its normal books and records and relied instead on the
Department's calculation methodology in Magnesium Metal From the
Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010) (Preliminary Results
08-09 Review). See also Memorandum entitled ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--
PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation and VSMPO--Tirus US Inc.''' dated May 7,
2010 (Preliminary Results 08-09 Review Cost Memo); the Department
followed the same methodology in Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75
FR 56989 (September 17, 2010) (Final Results 08-09 Review).
As such, AVISMA considered chlorine gas and market-quality raw
magnesium produced jointly at the split-off point as co-products. For
the purpose of allocating the split-off-point joint costs to the co-
products, AVISMA used the NRV of chlorine gas as calculated by the
Department in the Final Results 08-09 Review. See Attachment 5 of the
Preliminary Results 08-09 Review Cost Memo.
In accordance with section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, we have
examined both accounting methodologies employed by AVISMA in its normal
books and records during the POR. We agree with AVISMA that for
purposes of this review it is proper to depart from AVISMA's normal
books and records for the period April 1 through December 31, 2009. See
Memorandum entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--PSC VMPSO-AVIMSA
Corporation and VSMPO--Tirus, U.S. Inc.,'' dated May 2, 2011
(Preliminary Results 09-10 Review Cost Memo). We have accepted AVISMA's
reported costs for the period April 1 through December 31, 2009, for
the sake of maintaining consistency with the prior segments of this
proceeding. In the previous review, we also deviated from AVISMA's
normal books and records (which considered raw magnesium to be a by-
product of the joint process) and used the same co-product approach in
allocating joint costs to raw magnesium and chlorine gas as reported by
AVISMA for the first nine months of the instant POR (April 1 through
December 31, 2009). See, e.g., Preliminary Results 08-09 Review, 75 FR
at 26925 (unchanged in Final Results 08-09 Review).
As explained in the Preliminary Results 09-10 Review Cost Memo, we
find AVISMA's new methodology to be a reasonable reflection of the
costs associated with the production of the subject merchandise.
Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have recalculated AVISMA's
costs of raw magnesium and chlorine gas for the period January 1
through March 31, 2010, to reflect AVISMA's normal books and records as
instructed by section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act.
We have calculated the weighted-average COP using the costs of the
final products for the period April 1 through December 31, 2009, and
the costs of the final products for the period January 1 through March
31, 2010, in order to determine the weighted-average per-unit costs of
the merchandise under consideration. See Preliminary Results 09-10
Review Cost Memo.
We have not considered the comments filed by the petitioner on
April 20, 2011, in our analysis of AVISMA's reported costs for these
preliminary results because of the lack of time between the date of the
petitioner's filing and the statutory deadline for completion of the
preliminary results. With less than two weeks between the submission of
the comments and the fully extended statutory deadline for issuing
these preliminary results, we could not ensure full participation by
all parties in the process of determining whether sufficient
information is on the record to apply the proposed analysis. We will
consider the petitioner's comments carefully for the final results of
this review and we invite comments from the parties concerning the
implications of applying the petitioner's proposed analysis for the
purposes of this review (e.g., what to use for constructed value in the
event we must rely on one of the alternative methods described in
section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act). Such comments should be filed in
accordance with the schedule for filing case briefs as discussed in the
``Disclosure and Public Comment'' section below.
We also revised AVISMA's reported net interest expense ratio to
exclude that portion of the reported interest income offset related to
loans receivable. AVISMA's auditor could not determine that the
carrying value of AVISMA's loans receivable was reasonable. As such, we
cannot determine whether the interest income calculated by AVISMA based
on the value of the loans receivable is a reasonable reflection of the
actual interest received. Therefore, we have disallowed the offset for
this interest income because we cannot conclude that the value of the
reported interest income offset related to loans receivable is
reasonable. See id.
After calculating the COP and 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 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, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to
section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of a
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP,
we do 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 a respondent's
sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregard
the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities
within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-
average COPs for the POR, such 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
[[Page 26251]]
disregarded certain home market sales of magnesium metal because such
sales did not pass the cost test. See Preliminary Analysis Memo.
Level of Trade
In the U.S. market, AVISMA made CEP sales. In the case of CEP
sales, we identified the level of trade based on the price after the
deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
Although the starting price for CEP sales was based on sales made by
the affiliated reseller to unaffiliated customers through two channels
of distribution, sales to end-users and distributors, AVISMA reported
similar selling activities associated with all sales to the affiliated
reseller (i.e., at the CEP level of trade).
AVISMA reported one channel of distribution in the home market,
sales to end-users. We found that this channel of distribution
constitutes a single level of trade in the home market. To determine
whether home market sales were made at a different level of trade than
U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. We found that there were significant differences
between the selling activities associated with the CEP level of trade
and those associated with the home market level of trade and, thus, we
found the CEP level of trade to be different from the home market level
of trade. Further, we found the CEP level of trade to be at a less
advanced stage of distribution than the home market level of trade.
Because AVISMA reported no home market levels of trade that were
equivalent to the CEP level of trade and because we determined that the
CEP level of trade was at a less advanced stage than the single home
market level of trade, we were unable to determine a level-of-trade
adjustment based on the respondent's home market sales of the foreign
like product. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides
an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For
AVISMA's CEP sales, we made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For a description of our level-of-
trade analysis for these preliminary results, see Preliminary Analysis
Memo.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results and in accordance with
section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See 19 CFR 351.415.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margins on magnesium metal from the
Russian Federation exist for the period April 1, 2009, through March
31, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation............................... 0.00
Solikamsk Magnesium Works.................................. *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has an
individual rate from the last segment of the proceeding in which the
firm had shipments or sales.
Disclosure and Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to any
party to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five days after the date of
publication of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment
on the preliminary results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c), case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Interested parties
may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which must be
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later
than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic
version included. A list of authorities used and an executive summary
of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This
summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing,
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If requested, a hearing
will be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal
briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be
determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and
location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. 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, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within
30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and
telephone number, (2) the number of participants, and (3) a list of the
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in
that party's rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate
for AVISMA reflecting these preliminary results of review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by AVISMA or SMW for which AVISMA
or SMW did not know their merchandise was destined for the United
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries of merchandise produced by AVISMA or SMW at the all-others rate
if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the
transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
The Department intends to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15
days after the publication of the final results of review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
Because we revoked the order effective April 15, 2010, no cash
deposits for estimated antidumping duties are required.
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
[[Page 26252]]
occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The preliminary results of this administrative review and this
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-11122 Filed 5-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
