30068 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices

2 64 FR at 69001.

3 Manganese Metal from the People’s Republic of

China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 49449 (September 13,

1999).

4See e.g., Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 49447

(September 13, 1999); Fresh Garlic from the PRC;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Partial Termination of Administrative

Review, 62 FR 23758, 23760 (May 1, 1997);

Sparklers from the PRC; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

39630, 39631 (July 30, 1996).

price index published by the Reserve

Bank of India. See the Decision Memo

at Comment 5.

Factory Overhead, SG&A and Profit:

We have derived surrogate ratios for

factory overhead, SG&A and profit

based on financial data for Indian

nonferrous metals producers, as

published by the CMIE. See the

Decision Memo at Comment 9.

Ocean Freight: We have used as a

surrogate value for ocean freight

information obtained from the Federal

Maritime Commission on freight rates

during the POR. See the Decision Memo

at Comment 12.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

percentage weighted-average margins

exist for the period February 1, 1998,

through January 31, 1999:

Exporter Margin

(percent)

CMIECHN/CNIECHN .................. 36.49

PRC-wide .................................... 143.32

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

In order to assess duties on

appropriate entries as a result of this

review, we have calculated entryspecific duty assessment rates based on

the ratio of the amount of duty

calculated for each of CMIECHN/

CNIECHN’s verified sales during the

POR to the entered value of the

corresponding entry. The Department

will instruct the Customs Service to

assess these rates on those entries which

correspond to sales verified by the

Department as having been made

directly by CMIECHN/CNIECHN. With

respect to Sumitomo Canada, Ltd. (SCL)

and London & Scandinavian

Metallurgical Co., Ltd. (LSM), thirdcountry resellers which established the

identity of their PRC suppliers, the

Department will instruct Customs to

liquidate these entries at the cash

deposit rate in effect for their supplier(s)

at the time of entry.

As discussed in the Preliminary

Results,2 however, the Customs entry

data for the POR indicates that many

more shipments of manganese metal

listing CMIECHN/CNIECHN as the

manufacturer/exporter were entered

into the United States than the number

of POR sales reported by CMIECHN/

CNIECHN. On those entries listing

CMIECHN/CNIECHN as the direct

exporter but for which there are no

corresponding verified sales or sales by

LSM or SCL, the Department will

instruct the Customs Service to assess

the PRC-wide rate of 143.32 percent.

This is consistent with the Department’s

practice as applied during the previous

review.3 The Department will likewise

instruct the Customs Service to assess

the PRC-wide rate on all POR entries

from China Hunan International

Economic Development (Group)

Corporation (HIED) and on all entries

from other PRC exporters that do not

have separate rates.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of

administrative review for all shipments

of manganese metal from the PRC

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for CMIECHN/

CNIECHN will be the rate shown above;

(2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period; (3) for sales

made by LSM, SCL and other non-PRC

exporters of subject merchandise from

the PRC, the cash deposit rates will be

those cash deposit rates in effect at the

time of entry for their respective PRC

supplier(s); 4 and (4) for all other PRC

exporters, including HIED, the cash

deposit rate will be 143.32 percent. This

rate is the ‘‘PRC-wide’’ rate from the

less-than-fair-value investigation. These

deposit requirements shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of doubled

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the return or

destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305, 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.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections section 751(a)(1) and

771(i) of the Act.

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—List of Comments and

Issues in the Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Application of China-wide Rate

Comment 2: Normal Value for SCL

Comment 3: Factual Information Regarding

CMIECHN/CNIECHN

Comment 4: Ore Valuation

Comment 5: Electricity Valuation

Comment 6: Liquid Ammonia Valuation

Comment 7: Selenium Dioxide Valuation

Comment 8: Positive Mud Valuation

Comment 9: Factory Overhead, SG&A, and

Profit Valuation

Comment 10: Excluding Labor from Factory

Overhead and SG&A Ratios

Comment 11: Ocean Freight—Use of

Reported Costs

Comment 12: Ocean Freight Valuation

[FR Doc. 00–11736 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–504]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On November 5, 1999, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the administrative

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices 30069

review of the antidumping duty order

on porcelain-on-steel cookware from

Mexico. The review covers two

manufacturers/exporters. The period of

review is December 1, 1997, through

November 30, 1998.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes in the margin calculations.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results. The final

weighted-average dumping margins for

the reviewed firms are listed below in

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate

Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4929 or (202) 482–

4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

part 351 (1998).

Background

The review covers two manufacturers/

exporters, Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. (Cinsa)

and Esmaltaciones de Norte America,

S.A. de C.V. (ENASA). The period of

review (POR) is December 1, 1997,

through November 30, 1998.

On November 5, 1999, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of the twelfth

antidumping duty administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

porcelain-on-steel cookware from

Mexico (64 FR 60417). On January 14,

2000, respondents submitted a

supplemental questionnaire response.

On February 3, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of extension of the time limit for

the final results of this review (65 FR

5311). On February 29 and March 1,

2000, the Department conducted a

verification on the issue of

reimbursement.

We invited parties to comment on the

preliminary results of review. A public

hearing was held on March 30, 2000. At

this hearing the Department gave the

petitioner and the respondents an

opportunity to comment further on

certain issues. On April 3, 2000, the

respondents filed a post-hearing

submission. The petitioner declined to

file a submission in response to the

Department’s offer. The Department has

conducted this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this review

are porcelain-on-steel cookware,

including tea kettles, which do not have

self-contained heating elements. All of

the foregoing are constructed of steel

and are enameled or glazed with

vitreous glasses. This merchandise is

currently classifiable under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00.

Kitchenware currently classifiable

under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30

is not subject to the order. Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Verification

Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act,

we verified the duty reimbursement

information provided by Cinsa and

ENASA using standard verification

procedures, including the examination

of relevant sales and financial records,

as well as the selection of original

documentation containing relevant

information. Our verification results are

outlined in the public version of the

verification report, dated March 15,

2000, and located in the public file in

Room B–099 of the Department’s main

building.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

antidumping duty administrative review

are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and

Decision Memorandum’’ (Decision

Memo) from Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated May 3, 2000,

which is hereby adopted by this notice.

A list of the issues which parties have

raised and to which we have responded,

all of which are in the Decision Memo,

is attached to this notice as an

Appendix. Parties can find a complete

discussion of all issues raised in this

review and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum which is on file in the

Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the

main Department building. In addition,

a complete version of the Decision

Memo can be accessed directly on the

Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/

records/frn. The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision Memo

are identical in content.

Duty Reimbursement

For the reasons outlined in the

Decision Memorandum, we have found

that Cinsa and ENASA have rebutted

the presumption of reimbursement as to

twelfth review entries when they

become due.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made certain changes

in the margin calculations. For a

discussion of these changes, see the

‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the

Decision Memo, which is on file in

room B–099 at the Department and

available on the Web at

www.ita.doc.gov/importladmin/

records/frn.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

weighted-average margin percentages

exists for the period December 1, 1997,

through November 30, 1998:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Cinsa ........................................... 8.96

ENASA ........................................ 27.37

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we

have calculated importer-specific

assessment rates. We will direct

Customs to assess the resulting

percentage margin against the entered

Customs values for the subject

merchandise on each of that importer’s

entries under the relevant order during

the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of the

administrative review for all shipments

of porcelain-on-steel cookware from

Mexico entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rates for Cinsa and ENASA will

be the rates shown above; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

30070 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 29.52.

This rate is the ‘‘All Others’’ rate from

the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of doubled

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APO)

of their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and terms of an

APO is a violation which is subject to

sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections section 751(a)(1) and

777(i) of the Act.

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—List of Issues

1. Duty Reimbursement

2. Reclassification of All U.S. Sales as

Constructed Export Price Sales

3. Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in

Mexico

4. Calculation of Cinsa International

Corporation’s Indirect Selling Expenses/

Bad Debt

5. Calculation of CEP Profit

6. CEP Offset Adjustment

7. Pre-Sale Warehousing Expenses

8. Model Matching Methodology

[FR Doc. 00–11735 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–814]

Pure Magnesium From Canada;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Notice

of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

1998–1999 administrative review and

intent not to revoke.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting an administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from Canada. The period of

review is August 1, 1998 through July

31, 1999. This review covers imports of

pure magnesium from one producer/

exporter.

We have preliminarily found that

sales of subject merchandise have not

been made below normal value. We

have also preliminarily determined not

to revoke the order with respect to pure

magnesium from Canada produced by

Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct the

Customs Service not to assess

antidumping duties.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

We will issue the final results not later

than 120 days from the date of

publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak

Smith or Melani Miller, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–0189 or (202) 482–

0116, respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations refer to 19

CFR Part 351 (1998).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from Canada on August 31,

1992 (57 FR 39390). On August 11,

1999, the Department published a notice

of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of this order

(64 FR 43649). On August 13, 1999,

Magnesium Corporation of America (the

‘‘petitioner’’) requested an

administrative review of imports of the

subject merchandise produced by Norsk

Hydro Canada, Inc. (‘‘NHCI’’). NCHI

made a similar request for review on

August 18, 1999. We initiated the

review on October 1, 1999. This review

covers the period August 1, 1998

through July 31, 1999.

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

pure magnesium. Pure unwrought

magnesium contains at least 99.8

percent magnesium by weight and is

sold in various slab and ingot forms and

sizes. Granular and secondary

magnesium are excluded from the scope

currently classifiable under subheading

8104.11.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’). The HTS item

number is provided for convenience and

for customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Export Price

For sales to the United States, we

used export price (‘‘EP’’) as defined in

section 772(a) of the Act because the

merchandise was sold directly to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation. The use of

constructed export prices was not

warranted based on the facts of the

record. EP was based on the packed,

delivered, duties unpaid price to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made a deduction for

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; this

included the foreign and U.S. inland

freight expenses.

Normal Value

We compared the aggregate quantity

of home market and U.S. sales and

determined that the quantity of the

company’s sales in its home market was

more than five percent of the quantity

of its sales to the U.S. market.

Consequently, pursuant to section

773(a)(1) of the Act, we based normal

value (‘‘NV’’) on home market sales.

We made adjustments for differences

in packing in accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the

Act. We also made adjustments for

movement expenses, consistent with

section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for

inland freight. In addition, we made

adjustments for differences in