Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76945-76948 [2011-31681]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 237 / Friday, December 9, 2011 / Notices
‘‘Petitioners’’) timely requested an
administrative review of entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR
from the following companies: Adler
Steel Ltd. (‘‘Adler Steel’’), Al Jazeera
Steel Products Co SAOG (‘‘Al Jazeera
Steel’’), Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Baoshan’’), Benxi Northern Steel
Pipes, Co. Ltd. (‘‘Benxi Northern’’),
CNOOC Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd.
(‘‘CNOOC Kingland’’), ETCO (China)
International Trading Co., Ltd.
(‘‘ETCO’’), Great River Trading
International Co. (‘‘Great River
Trading’’), Guangzhou Juyi Steel Pipes
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Guangzhou Juyi’’), Hebei
Zhongyuan Steel Pipe Manufacturer
(‘‘Hebei Zhongyuan’’), Hefei Zijin Steel
Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hefei
Zijin’’), Huludao City Steel Pipe
Industrial (‘‘Huludao City Steel Pipe’’),
Hunan Great Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Hunan Great’’), Hunan Hengyang Steel
Tube (Group) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hunan
Hengyang’’), Jiangsu Changbao Steel
Tube Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiangsu Changbao’’),
Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Jiangsu Yulong’’), Liaoning Northern
Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘Liaoning
Northern’’), Shanghai Zhongyou Tipo
Steel (‘‘Shanghai Zhongyou Tipo’’),
Shanghai Zhongyou TIPO Steel Pipe
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Zhongyou TIPO’’),
Sichuan YNJ Industries Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Sichuan YNJ’’), SteelFORCE Far East
Ltd. (‘‘SteelFORCE’’), Tianjin Baolai
International Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin
Baolai’’), Tianjin Huilitong Steel Tube
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin Huilitong’’), Tianjin
Longshenghua Import & Export
(‘‘Tianjin Longshenghua’’), Tianjin
Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin
Shuangjie’’), Tianjin Uniglory
International Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin
Uniglory’’), Weifang East Steel Pipe Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Weifang East’’), Wuxi Fastube
Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wuxi Fastube’’),
Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline Industry
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhejiang Kingland’’), and
Zhuji Tri-Union Import & Export Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Zhuji Tri-Union’’). The
Department initiated an administrative
review of these companies. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 76 FR 53404 (August 26, 2011).
In a letter dated November 22, 2011,
Petitioner withdrew its request for
review of all of the companies for which
it requested review, and requested that
the Department rescind the review with
respect to these companies. No other
parties requested a review.
Rescission of Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if the party
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:35 Dec 08, 2011
Jkt 226001
who requested the review withdraws
the request within 90 days of the date
of publication of the notice of initiation
of the requested review. Accordingly,
Petitioners timely withdrew its requests
for review of Adler Steel, Al Jazeera
Steel, Baoshan, Benxi Northern, CNOOC
Kingland, ETCO, Great River Trading,
Guangzhou Juyi, Hebei Zhongyuan,
Hefei Zijin, Huludao City Steel Pipe,
Hunan Great, Hunan Hengyang, Jiangsu
Changbao, Jiangsu Yulong, Liaoning
Northern, Shanghai Zhongyou Tipo,
Shanghai Zhongyou TIPO, Sichuan YNJ,
SteelFORCE, Tianjin Baolai, Tianjin
Huilitong, Tianjin Longshenghua,
Tianjin Shuangjie, Tianjin Uniglory,
Weifang East, Wuxi Fastube, Zhejiang
Kingland, and Zhuji Tri-Union. Because
no other party requested a review,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Department is rescinding the entire
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on CWP from
the PRC for the period July 1, 2010,
through June 30, 2011.
Assessment
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Antidumping duties
shall be assessed at rates equal to the
cash deposit of estimated antidumping
duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a 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.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76945
notification of the return or destruction
of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is
a sanctionable violation.
This notice is published in
accordance with section 777(i) of the
Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: December 5, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–31688 Filed 12–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–832]
Pure Magnesium From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of the
2009–2010 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 8, 2011, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published in the
Federal Register the preliminary results
in the 2009–2010 antidumping duty
administrative review of pure
magnesium from the People’s Republic
of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The period of review
(‘‘POR’’) is May 1, 2009, through April
30, 2010. We initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on pure magnesium from the PRC with
respect to Tianjin Magnesium
International Co., Ltd. (‘‘TMI’’). We
determined that TMI did not make sales
in the United States at prices below
normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the Preliminary
Results. We invited interested parties to
comment on our Preliminary Results.
Based on our analysis of the comments
received, we made changes to the
margin calculations for TMI. The final
dumping margin for this review is listed
in the ‘‘Final Results Margins’’ section
below.
DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eve
Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6231.
AGENCY:
1 See Pure Magnesium from the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of the 2009–2010
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
33194 (June 8, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’).
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
76946
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 237 / Friday, December 9, 2011 / Notices
Background
On June 8, 2011, the Department
published its Preliminary Results of the
antidumping duty administrative review
of pure magnesium from the PRC.2
On June 28, 2011, U.S. Magnesium
LLC (‘‘Petitioner’’) and TMI submitted
publicly available surrogate value
(‘‘SV’’) data to value TMI’s factors of
production (‘‘FOPs’’). On July 8, 2011,
both Petitioner and TMI submitted
rebuttal comments concerning valuation
of FOPs.
On June 21, 2011, the Department
determined that it would rely on a
single surrogate country to value labor,
and would use labor data from the
International Labour Organization
(‘‘ILO’’) Yearbook Chapter 6A as its
primary data source.3 On July 12, 2011,
the Department placed Chapter 6A
Indian labor cost data and a new
surrogate wage rate on the record for
this review.
Pursuant to the bifurcated briefing
schedule issued by the Department on
June 21, 2011, Petitioner and TMI
timely submitted case and rebuttal
briefs on multiple issues.
On September 20, 2011, the
Department rejected two of Petitioner’s
submissions because the Department
determined these submissions were
untimely filed.4 On September 23, 2011,
Petitioner requested that the Department
reject certain content in TMI’s August
15, 2011 rebuttal brief, claiming that the
content was an affirmative argument,
rather than a rebuttal to Petitioner’s case
brief, and thus untimely. TMI filed a
response to Petitioner’s claim on
September 26, 2011. On September 27,
2011, the Department declined to reject
the information because it determined
that TMI’s argument rebuts an argument
raised by Petitioner in its case brief in
accordance with the Department’s
regulations.5
On September 16, 2011, the
Department extended the deadline for
the final results of review to November
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2 Id.
3 See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings
Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing the
Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21,
2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’).
4 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Rejection of
Certain Untimely Submitted Information from the
Record of this 2009–2010 Administrative Review of
Pure Magnesium From the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated September 20, 2011.
5 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Petitioner’s
September 23, 2011 Request to Reject Certain
Argument in Tianjin Magnesium International’s
(‘‘TMI’’) August 15, 2011 Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated
September 27, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:35 Dec 08, 2011
Jkt 226001
21, 2011.6 The Department held a public
hearing on September 27, 2011.7
Following the time period for case
and rebuttal briefs, the Department
discovered that it inadvertently omitted
the underlying data used in making its
preliminary determination of the
surrogate value for truck freight as well
as the financial statements of an Indian
company. To remedy this oversight, the
Department subsequently placed the
data on the record 8 and afforded
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the data.9 Subsequently,
the Department extended the deadline
of the final results to December 5, 2011,
to review the submitted comments.10
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs 11 filed by parties in this
review are addressed in the
Memorandum from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration,
‘‘Pure Magnesium from the People’s
Republic of China: Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of
the 2009–2010 Administrative Review,’’
dated November 21, 2011 (‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum’’), which is
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of
the issues that parties raised and to
which we responded in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum follows as an
appendix to this notice. Parties can find
a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendation in this
public memorandum which is on file
electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Services System (‘‘IA
6 See Pure Magnesium from the People’s Republic
of China; Extension of Time for the Final Results
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76
FR 59111 (September 23, 2011).
7 Petitioner requested a hearing for issues raised
in the case and rebuttal briefs on July 8, 2011; see
Petitioner’s submission, ‘‘‘Pure Magnesium From
The People’s Republic of China: Petitioner’s
Request For A Hearing,’’ dated July 8, 2011.
8 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘The 2006–2007
Financial Statements for Madras Aluminum
Company (‘‘MALCO’’) and Infobanc Truck Freight
Rate Data,’’ dated October 4, 2011.
9 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Soliciting
Comments on the 2006–2007 Financial Statements
for Madras Aluminum Company (‘‘MALCO’’) and
Infobanc Truck Freight Rate Data,’’ dated November
1, 2011.
10 See Pure Magnesium From the People’s
Republic of China: Second Extension of Time for
the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 70709 (November 15,
2011).
11 Including comments timely filed in response to
the Department’s release of certain information on
October 4, 2011 and November 1, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is
available in the Central Records Unit
(‘‘CRU’’) of the main Commerce
Building, Room 7046. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum is accessible on
the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The
paper copy and electronic versions of
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
are identical in content.
Period of Review
The POR is May 1, 2009, through
April 30, 2010.
Scope of the Order
Merchandise covered by the order is
pure magnesium regardless of
chemistry, form or size, unless expressly
excluded from the scope of the order.
Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy
containing by weight primarily the
element magnesium and produced by
decomposing raw materials into
magnesium metal. Pure primary
magnesium is used primarily as a
chemical in the aluminum alloying,
desulfurization, and chemical reduction
industries. In addition, pure magnesium
is used as an input in producing
magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium
encompasses products (including, but
not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns
and crystals) with the following primary
magnesium contents:
(1) Products that contain at least
99.95% primary magnesium, by weight
(generally referred to as ‘‘ultra pure’’
magnesium);
(2) Products that contain less than
99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary
magnesium, by weight (generally
referred to as ‘‘pure’’ magnesium); and
(3) Products that contain 50% or
greater, but less than 99.8% primary
magnesium, by weight, and that do not
conform to ASTM specifications for
alloy magnesium (generally referred to
as ‘‘off-specification pure’’ magnesium).
‘‘Off-specification pure’’ magnesium
is pure primary magnesium containing
magnesium scrap, secondary
magnesium, oxidized magnesium or
impurities (whether or not intentionally
added) that cause the primary
magnesium content to fall below 99.8%
by weight. It generally does not contain,
individually or in combination, 1.5% or
more, by weight, of the following
alloying elements: Aluminum,
manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium,
zirconium and rare earths.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are alloy primary magnesium (that
meets specifications for alloy
magnesium), primary magnesium
anodes, granular primary magnesium
(including turnings, chips and powder)
having a maximum physical dimension
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 237 / Friday, December 9, 2011 / Notices
(i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or
less, secondary magnesium (which has
pure primary magnesium content of less
than 50% by weight), and remelted
magnesium whose pure primary
magnesium content is less than 50% by
weight.
Pure magnesium products covered by
the order are currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’)
subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00,
8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00,
3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope is dispositive.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of the comments
received, the Department has made
certain changes in TMI’s margin
calculation. For the final results, the
Department has made the following
changes:
• We based our determination of the
surrogate financial ratios on the
financial statements of Hindalco
Industries Limited rather than Bharat
Aluminum Co., Ltd. See Comment 5 of
the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
• Consistent with our current
practice, we revised the surrogate value
for direct labor, indirect labor and
packing labor to account for industryspecific wage rates. See Comment 3 of
the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
• We changed the source of the
calculation of the SV for dolomite to
GTA data. See Comment 7 of the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
• We revised our calculation of the
SV for the by-product offsets of coal tar
and magnesium waste to use the HTS
2706.00.10 and HTS 2620.99,
respectively. See Comments 10 and 11
of the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
• We added three reported U.S. sales
expense fields to the margin calculation
program: Inland Freight from the
Warehouse to the Customer
(‘‘INLFPWU’’), U.S. Inventory
(‘‘INVENTORY’’), and Warehouse
Handling (‘‘WHHANDLING’’), which
were inadvertently omitted in the
Preliminary Results. See Comment 9 of
the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
Final Results Margin
The weighted-average dumping
margins for the final results are as
follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:35 Dec 08, 2011
Jkt 226001
Weightedaverage
margin
(percentage)
Exporter
Tianjin Magnesium International
Co. Ltd. .................................
0.00
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. For
assessment purposes, we calculated
importer (or customer)-specific
assessment rates for merchandise
subject to this review. Where
appropriate, we calculated an ad
valorem rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping
margins for reviewed sales to that party
by the total entered values associated
with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
resulting ad valorem rate against the
entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we
calculated a per-unit rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the
total dumping margins for reviewed
sales to that party by the total sales
quantity associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct
CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate
against the entered quantity of the
subject merchandise. Where an importer
(or customer)-specific assessment rate is
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent),
the Department will instruct CBP to
assess that importer (or customer’s)
entries of subject merchandise without
regard to antidumping duties, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these
final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative 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 TMI, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate listed
above; (2) for previously investigated or
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76947
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 recent period; (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 111.73 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 exporter that supplied that nonPRC exporter. The deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final
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 the antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing the
final results and notice in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
76948
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 237 / Friday, December 9, 2011 / Notices
Dated: December 5, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Comment 1: Whether the Department
Should Apply Partial Adverse Facts
Available to TMI
Comment 2: Whether the Department
Should Continue To Treat the Identity
of TMI’s Supplier and the Supplier’s
Business Operation as Business
Proprietary Information
Comment 3: Wage Rate
Comment 4: Whether the Department
Should Treat Retorts as a Direct
Material
Comment 5: Selection of Surrogate
Financial Statements and Calculation
of Financial Ratios
Comment 6: Whether the Department
Should Grant TMI By-Product Offsets
for Magnesium Waste and Cement
Clinker
Comment 7: Valuation of Dolomite
Comment 8: The Source of the Surrogate
Value for Truck Freight
Comment 9: Ministerial Errors in the
Preliminary Results
Comment 10: The Surrogate Value for
Coal Tar
Comment 11: Valuation of Magnesium
Waste
Comment 12: The Per-Unit Basis for
Steel Bands
Comment 13: Valuation of Flux
[FR Doc. 2011–31681 Filed 12–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–P–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–533–825]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From India: Final
Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 1, 2011, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) issued the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet
and strip (PET Film) from India for Ester
Industries Ltd. (Ester), covering the
period of review (POR) from January 1,
2009, through December 31, 2009. Based
on the results of our analysis of the
comments received, we continue to find
that subject merchandise produced and
exported by Ester has benefitted from
countervailable subsidies provided on
the production and export of PET Film
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:35 Dec 08, 2011
Jkt 226001
from India. Also, based on our analysis
of Ester’s comments, we made certain
revisions to the calculations of certain
subsidy programs. The final subsidy rate
for Ester is listed below in the section
titled ‘‘Final Results of Administrative
Review.’’ The Department will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to assess countervailing duties at
the final subsidy rate.
DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi
Blum or Toni Page, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0197 or (202) 482–
1398.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the issuance of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
From India: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 47558 (August 5, 2011)
(Preliminary Results), the following
events have occurred. Ester filed its
response to the Department’s third
supplemental questionnaire on
September 8, 2011. On September 21,
2011, the Department issued a
memorandum confirming a revised
briefing schedule. See Memorandum To
Interested Parties From Toni Page,
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Administrative
Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet, and Strip from India;
Revised Briefing Schedule (September
21, 2011). Ester and the petitioners,
DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi
Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, Inc., and
Toray Plastics (America), Inc., timely
filed case briefs on September 28, 2011.
Both Ester and the petitioners timely
filed their respective rebuttal briefs on
October 3, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are
all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet
and strip, whether extruded or
coextruded. Excluded are metallized
films and other finished films that have
had at least one of their surfaces
modified by the application of a
performance-enhancing resinous or
inorganic layer more than 0.00001
inches thick. Imports of PET Film are
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under item number 3920.62.00.90.
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
convenience and customs purposes. The
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in
the Memorandum from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration,
Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Results of the Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review of
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip (PET Film) from India
(December 5, 2011) (Issues and Decision
Memorandum), which is hereby
adopted by this notice. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum also contains a
complete analysis of the programs
covered by this review and the
methodologies used to calculate the
subsidy rates and discusses any changes
to the subsidy rates from the
Preliminary Results. A list of the
comments raised in the briefs and
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is appended to this
notice. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is on file electronically
via Import Administration’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is
available in the Central Records Unit,
room 7046 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the internet at https://
www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed and the
electronic versions of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments
and information received, we have
revised the calculations with respect to
the benefit amount calculated for the
Pre- and Post-Shipment Export
Financing and Export Promotion Capital
Goods Scheme programs. In addition,
based on our analysis of information
Ester provided in its third supplemental
questionnaire response, we have made
changes to the sales denominators for
calculating the ad valorem rates for the
programs used by Ester. These changes
are discussed in more detail in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Final Results of Administrative Review
In accordance with section 777A(e)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76945-76948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31681]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-832]
Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 8, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results in the 2009-
2010 antidumping duty administrative review of pure magnesium from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ The period of review (``POR'')
is May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010. We initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the PRC
with respect to Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (``TMI''). We
determined that TMI did not make sales in the United States at prices
below normal value (``NV'') in the Preliminary Results. We invited
interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. Based on our
analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the margin
calculations for TMI. The final dumping margin for this review is
listed in the ``Final Results Margins'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 33194 (June 8, 2011) (``Preliminary Results'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eve Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6231.
[[Page 76946]]
Background
On June 8, 2011, the Department published its Preliminary Results
of the antidumping duty administrative review of pure magnesium from
the PRC.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 28, 2011, U.S. Magnesium LLC (``Petitioner'') and TMI
submitted publicly available surrogate value (``SV'') data to value
TMI's factors of production (``FOPs''). On July 8, 2011, both
Petitioner and TMI submitted rebuttal comments concerning valuation of
FOPs.
On June 21, 2011, the Department determined that it would rely on a
single surrogate country to value labor, and would use labor data from
the International Labour Organization (``ILO'') Yearbook Chapter 6A as
its primary data source.\3\ On July 12, 2011, the Department placed
Chapter 6A Indian labor cost data and a new surrogate wage rate on the
record for this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the bifurcated briefing schedule issued by the
Department on June 21, 2011, Petitioner and TMI timely submitted case
and rebuttal briefs on multiple issues.
On September 20, 2011, the Department rejected two of Petitioner's
submissions because the Department determined these submissions were
untimely filed.\4\ On September 23, 2011, Petitioner requested that the
Department reject certain content in TMI's August 15, 2011 rebuttal
brief, claiming that the content was an affirmative argument, rather
than a rebuttal to Petitioner's case brief, and thus untimely. TMI
filed a response to Petitioner's claim on September 26, 2011. On
September 27, 2011, the Department declined to reject the information
because it determined that TMI's argument rebuts an argument raised by
Petitioner in its case brief in accordance with the Department's
regulations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Rejection of Certain Untimely
Submitted Information from the Record of this 2009-2010
Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic
of China,'' dated September 20, 2011.
\5\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Petitioner's September 23,
2011 Request to Reject Certain Argument in Tianjin Magnesium
International's (``TMI'') August 15, 2011 Rebuttal Brief,'' dated
September 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 16, 2011, the Department extended the deadline for the
final results of review to November 21, 2011.\6\ The Department held a
public hearing on September 27, 2011.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China;
Extension of Time for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 59111 (September 23, 2011).
\7\ Petitioner requested a hearing for issues raised in the case
and rebuttal briefs on July 8, 2011; see Petitioner's submission,
```Pure Magnesium From The People's Republic of China: Petitioner's
Request For A Hearing,'' dated July 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the time period for case and rebuttal briefs, the
Department discovered that it inadvertently omitted the underlying data
used in making its preliminary determination of the surrogate value for
truck freight as well as the financial statements of an Indian company.
To remedy this oversight, the Department subsequently placed the data
on the record \8\ and afforded interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the data.\9\ Subsequently, the Department extended the
deadline of the final results to December 5, 2011, to review the
submitted comments.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Memorandum to the File, ``The 2006-2007 Financial
Statements for Madras Aluminum Company (``MALCO'') and Infobanc
Truck Freight Rate Data,'' dated October 4, 2011.
\9\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Soliciting Comments on the
2006-2007 Financial Statements for Madras Aluminum Company
(``MALCO'') and Infobanc Truck Freight Rate Data,'' dated November
1, 2011.
\10\ See Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China:
Second Extension of Time for the Final Results of the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 70709 (November 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs \11\ filed by
parties in this review are addressed in the Memorandum from Christian
Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, ``Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China:
Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2009-2010
Administrative Review,'' dated November 21, 2011 (``Issues and Decision
Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. Parties can
find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file
electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (``IA
ACCESS''). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit
(``CRU'') of the main Commerce Building, Room 7046. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum is accessible on
the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic
versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Including comments timely filed in response to the
Department's release of certain information on October 4, 2011 and
November 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010.
Scope of the Order
Merchandise covered by the order is pure magnesium regardless of
chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of
the order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight
primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw
materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used
primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and
chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as
an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses
products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and
crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:
(1) Products that contain at least 99.95% primary magnesium, by
weight (generally referred to as ``ultra pure'' magnesium);
(2) Products that contain less than 99.95% but not less than 99.8%
primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as ``pure''
magnesium); and
(3) Products that contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8%
primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM
specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as ``off-
specification pure'' magnesium).
``Off-specification pure'' magnesium is pure primary magnesium
containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or
impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary
magnesium content to fall below 99.8% by weight. It generally does not
contain, individually or in combination, 1.5% or more, by weight, of
the following alloying elements: Aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon,
thorium, zirconium and rare earths.
Excluded from the scope of the order are alloy primary magnesium
(that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium
anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and
powder) having a maximum physical dimension
[[Page 76947]]
(i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or less, secondary magnesium
(which has pure primary magnesium content of less than 50% by weight),
and remelted magnesium whose pure primary magnesium content is less
than 50% by weight.
Pure magnesium products covered by the order are currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00,
8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope is dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department has
made certain changes in TMI's margin calculation. For the final
results, the Department has made the following changes:
We based our determination of the surrogate financial
ratios on the financial statements of Hindalco Industries Limited
rather than Bharat Aluminum Co., Ltd. See Comment 5 of the accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Consistent with our current practice, we revised the
surrogate value for direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor to
account for industry-specific wage rates. See Comment 3 of the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
We changed the source of the calculation of the SV for
dolomite to GTA data. See Comment 7 of the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
We revised our calculation of the SV for the by-product
offsets of coal tar and magnesium waste to use the HTS 2706.00.10 and
HTS 2620.99, respectively. See Comments 10 and 11 of the accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
We added three reported U.S. sales expense fields to the
margin calculation program: Inland Freight from the Warehouse to the
Customer (``INLFPWU''), U.S. Inventory (``INVENTORY''), and Warehouse
Handling (``WHHANDLING''), which were inadvertently omitted in the
Preliminary Results. See Comment 9 of the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
Final Results Margin
The weighted-average dumping margins for the final results are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Magnesium International Co. Ltd................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this
review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where
appropriate, we calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to
that party by the total entered values associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we
will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the
entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where appropriate,
we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or customer) by
dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by
the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. For duty-
assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess
the resulting per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject
merchandise. Where an importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate
is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will
instruct CBP to assess that importer (or customer's) entries of subject
merchandise without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2). The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these
final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative 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 TMI, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (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 recent period; (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 111.73 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 exporter that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. The deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 76948]]
Dated: December 5, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial Adverse Facts
Available to TMI
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Continue To Treat the Identity
of TMI's Supplier and the Supplier's Business Operation as Business
Proprietary Information
Comment 3: Wage Rate
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Treat Retorts as a Direct
Material
Comment 5: Selection of Surrogate Financial Statements and Calculation
of Financial Ratios
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Grant TMI By-Product Offsets
for Magnesium Waste and Cement Clinker
Comment 7: Valuation of Dolomite
Comment 8: The Source of the Surrogate Value for Truck Freight
Comment 9: Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Results
Comment 10: The Surrogate Value for Coal Tar
Comment 11: Valuation of Magnesium Waste
Comment 12: The Per-Unit Basis for Steel Bands
Comment 13: Valuation of Flux
[FR Doc. 2011-31681 Filed 12-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-P-P
