[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42492-42496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20734]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-821-807]


Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium From the Russian Federation: 
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from Shieldalloy Metallurgical 
Corporation (Shieldalloy), the petitioner, the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from the 
Russian Federation (Russia). This notice of preliminary results covers 
the period January 4, 1995, through June 30, 1996. The Department is 
now rescinding this review in part with respect to one exporter, 
Odermet, Ltd., who had no shipments of the subject merchandise during 
the period of review. For the second exporter, Galt Alloys, Inc.(Galt), 
the review indicates the existence of dumping margins during this 
period for sales of merchandise from one producer.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping duties equal to the 
difference between the export price (EP) and the NV. Interested parties 
are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit 
argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 
(1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Mary Jenkins, 
AD/CVD Enforcement II, Office 5, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4136 or (202) 482-1756, 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 Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations as codified at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on

[[Page 42493]]

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from the Russian Federation on July 
10, 1995 (60 FR 35550).
    The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity To Request an 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for this review 
period on July 8, 1996 (61 FR 35712). On July 17, 1996, Shieldalloy 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from 
Russia for exporters Galt and Odermet, Ltd. We published a notice of 
initiation of the review on August 15, 1996 (61 FR 42416).
    In a letter dated September 9, 1996, Odermet, Ltd., stated that it 
made no shipments of the subject merchandise during the review period. 
In response to our query, Customs provided no indication that Odermet 
had shipped the merchandise during the review period.
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for the preliminary results of an administrative review if 
it determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within 
the statutory time limit of 245 days. On April 7, 1997, the Department 
extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this case (see 
Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium from the Russian Federation; Notice 
of Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Time 
Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16542, April 7, 
1997). The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Recission

    We have determined that during the period of review (POR), Odermet 
did not export the subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, 
we rescind this review with respect to Odermet.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this administrative review are 
ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium, regardless of grade, chemistry, 
form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of this order. 
Ferrovanadium includes alloys containing ferrovanadium as the 
predominant element by weight (i.e., more weight than any other 
element, except iron in some instances) and at least 4 percent by 
weight of iron. Nitrided vanadium includes compounds containing 
vanadium as the predominant element, by weight, and at least 5 percent, 
by weight, of nitrogen. Excluded from the scope of this order are 
vanadium additives other than ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium, such 
as vanadium-aluminum master alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium waste 
and scrap, vanadium-bearing raw materials, such as slag, boiler 
residues, fly ash, and vanadium oxides.
    The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 2850.00.20, 7202.92.00, 7202.99.5040, 8112.40.3000, and 
8112.40.6000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is 
dispositive.
    The POR is January 4, 1995, through June 30, 1996, covering one 
exporter, Galt.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Galt, a U.S. company, reported that it purchased merchandise 
produced by two producers--SC-Vanadium Tulachermet (Tulachermet) and 
Chusovoy Metallurgical Works (Chusovoy)--and re-sold the merchandise to 
customers in the United States and other countries via a warehouse in 
Europe. Galt reported that neither producer is affiliated with Galt and 
at the time of each producer's sale to Galt, neither producer knew the 
ultimate destination of the merchandise. Thus, for purposes of the fair 
value comparison, Galt's sales to its first unaffiliated U.S. customer 
form the basis of export price.
    However, these producers knew at the time of the sale that the 
merchandise was destined for exportation. Further, the subject 
merchandise was merely transhipped through the intermediate country. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(3), normal value is 
determined in the country of origin using the factors of production 
methodology, as discussed below.
    Both Tulachermet and Chusovoy responded to the Department's initial 
antidumping questionnaire, but Chusovoy did not respond to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire. Tulachermet has continued to 
cooperate with the Department's requests for information.
    Under section 776(a)(2) (A) and (B) of the Act, the Department 
shall use facts otherwise available in making its determinations if an 
interested party withholds or fails to provide information at the time 
and in the manner requested. In this instance, the NV information 
necessary to calculate antidumping duties for Galt's sales of Chusovoy-
produced merchandise is not on the record because Chusovoy failed to 
provide requested information by the established deadline. The limited 
information that Chusovoy submitted is so incomplete that it cannot 
serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination in 
this review. As a result, pursuant to sections 776(a) and 782(e) of the 
Act, the Department must resort to facts available.
    Section 776(b) of the Act permits the Department to use an adverse 
inference in selecting from facts available if the Department finds 
that an interested party has not cooperated to the best of its ability 
in responding to a request for information. By failing to respond, 
Chusovoy has not cooperated to the best of its ability. Therefore, we 
find it appropriate to apply adverse facts available with regard to 
Galt's sales of Chusovoy-produced merchandise. At the same time, both 
Galt and its second Russian supplier, Tulachermet, fully cooperated 
with the Department. Thus, under section 776(b) of the Act, an adverse 
inference is not warranted with respect to sales of Tulachermet's 
merchandise.
    The information submitted by Galt and Tulachermet meets the 
requirements of section 782(e) of the Act:
    (1) The information is timely;
    (2) The information is verifiable;
    (3) The information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a 
reliable basis for our determination;
    (4) These parties have acted to the best of their abilities in 
providing the requested information; and
    (5) The information can be used without undue difficulties. 
Accordingly, we have relied upon the information submitted by Galt and 
Tulachermet.
    Consistent with our current practice, we have calculated a single 
rate applicable to the exporter, Galt. This rate reflects the use of 
adverse facts available for Galt's sales of Chusovoy merchandise as 
well as calculated margins for Galt's sales of Tulachermet merchandise 
(see, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure 
Magnesium From Ukraine, 60 FR 16433, March 30, 1995). However, we will 
continue to examine whether, given the facts of this case, applying 
separate ``combination rates'' (i.e., rates for each specific exporter/
producer combination) would be more appropriate. Therefore, we invite 
comments from interested parties on this issue.

Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate for Sales of Chusovoy-
Produced Merchandise

    Section 776(b) authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts

[[Page 42494]]

available information derived from the petition, a final determination 
from a segment of the proceeding, or other information placed on the 
record. Because information from the petition and prior segments of the 
proceeding constitute secondary information, the Department must, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal, as stated in section 
776(c) of the Act.
    In light of Chusovoy's failure to respond, we have determined that 
the information in the petition is the most appropriate facts 
available. To corroborate that information, we reviewed the data 
submitted and the assumptions petitioners made in calculating estimated 
dumping margins in the petition. As discussed in detail in 
``Corroboration of FA Rates,'' Memorandum to Jeffrey P. Bialos, 
Principal Deputy Secretary for Import Administration, from the 
Ferrovanadium Team, dated July 31, 1997 (Corroboration Memo), we 
compared the petition's bases for U.S. price (now export price), 
factors of production, and surrogate values to independent data from 
the period of investigation. See also Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China 
(61 FR 68229, 68230, December 27, 1996), Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China (62 FR 1734, 1735, 
January 13, 1997), and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From 
Thailand (62 FR 16541, 16542, April 7, 1997).
    Based on our analysis, we determined that the elements of the 
petition calculation are reliable and, with one adjustment, have 
probative value. During the LTFV investigation, we determined that the 
principal raw material used by respondents to produce the subject 
merchandise, vanadium slag, was of significantly lower quality than the 
material upon which the petitioner estimated its surrogate value (see 
also discussion below under ``Normal Value''). Therefore, we have 
adjusted the valuation of the vanadium slag factor in the petition to 
reflect this difference in quality. With this adjustment, the 
corroborated rate derived from the petition is 88.63% .
    Accordingly, for Galt's sales of Chusovoy-produced merchandise, we 
have applied the recalculated petition rate of 88.63 percent.

Galt's Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    As Galt is located in a market-economy country and is not 
affiliated with a Russian producer or exporter, we are calculating a 
separate rate for this reseller (see Bicycles From the PRC; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 61 FR 19026, 19027 
(April 30, 1996)). During the POR, Galt took possession of the Russia-
produced merchandise outside of the United States and then sold the 
merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States.
    For Galt's sales of subject merchandise produced by Tulachermet, 
when the merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when 
constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise indicated, 
we calculated the export price (EP) of the subject merchandise sold to 
the United States in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Where 
Galt's sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser took place after 
importation into the United States, we based the price in the United 
States on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
    We calculated EP based on the price to unrelated purchasers in the 
United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for the following 
movement expenses incurred in market economy currencies and provided by 
market economy suppliers: foreign brokerage and handling, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland 
freight, and U.S. duty charges. We valued inland freight expenses 
incurred in bringing the subject merchandise from the Russian plant to 
the reseller's warehouse using surrogate data based on South African 
freight costs. We selected South Africa as the surrogate country for 
the reasons explained in the ``Surrogate Country Selection'' section of 
this notice.
    For CEP sales, we made additional deductions for Galt's direct and 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, incurred 
with regard to economic activities in the United States, as well as 
repacking, warehousing, and credit expenses, pursuant to section 
772(d)(1) of the Act. Galt reported its indirect selling expenses on a 
fixed, per-unit basis. We have recalculated these expenses as a 
percentage of sales value, based on information in Galt's questionnaire 
response, consistent with the manner in which the Department normally 
calculates indirect selling expenses. We deducted an amount for CEP 
profit by applying Galt's profit rate to the sum of selling expenses 
incurred in the United States, in accordance with section 772(f) of the 
Act.
    No other adjustments to EP or CEP sales were claimed or allowed.

Surrogate Country Selection

    As noted above, NV is determined in Russia, the country of origin, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(3) of the Act. Because the Department 
considers Russia an NME country and the producers of the merchandise 
exported by Galt are located in Russia, we are not able to determine NV 
on the basis of these producers' costs and prices. Section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV on the 
basis of the value of the factors of production if (1) the subject 
merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) the available 
information does not permit the calculation of NV under section 773(a) 
of the Act. Therefore, we have applied surrogate values to factors of 
production to determine NV.
    We determined that South Africa is comparable to the Russian 
Federation in terms of per capita gross national product and the 
national distribution of labor (See ``Ferrovanadium and Nitrided 
Vanadium from Russia: Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country 
Selection,'' Memorandum to David Binder from David Mueller, October 29, 
1996). In addition, South Africa is a significant producer of 
ferrovanadium. Therefore, we chose South Africa as an appropriate 
surrogate on the basis of the above criteria and have used publicly 
available information relating to South Africa wherever possible to 
value the various factors of production.

Normal Value

    To determine the NV for Galt sales of merchandise produced by 
Tulachermet, we valued the factors of production as discussed in the 
Valuation Memorandum dated July 28, 1997, on file in the Central 
Records Unit. The values used are summarized below:
    <bullet> We valued most raw materials and packing materials based 
on South African domestic prices in South Africa's Mineral Industry 
1995/96 (SAMI 95/96) and unit prices, reported net of taxes, based on 
South African import data from Southern African Customs Union Trade 
Statistics (SACU Trade Statistics).
    For vanadium slag, we valued a portion of Tulachermet's consumption 
at the market economy price Tulachermet paid for South African slag 
consumed during the POR. The balance

[[Page 42495]]

of Tulachermet's POR slag consumption was Russian-sourced slag, which 
contained a substantially lower concentration of vanadium pentoxide. We 
were unable to find any surrogate value data for vanadium slag of this 
quality. As facts available, we used Tulachermet's purchase price for 
South African slag as the surrogate value and adjusted it downward to 
account for the difference in vanadium pentoxide content, using the 
same adjustment made in the LTFV investigation.
    As discussed in the Valuation Memorandum, the Department received 
information in this proceeding that the 90% vanadium pentoxide prices 
used in the LTFV adjustment methodology were based on Russian material 
prices. According to information obtained from an industry publication, 
Metal Bulletin, it is not possible to determine prices of 90% vanadium 
pentoxide from market economy counties during that period. In the 
absence of any other means to adjust the slag value, we are applying 
the LTFV methodology for the preliminary results as facts available. In 
doing so, we recognize that the 90% vanadium pentoxide prices used to 
establish the adjustment ratio represent merchandise from a non-market 
economy. However, it is the only information on the record with which 
to make the adjustment. As such, the resulting relationship between 90% 
vanadium pentoxide, produced from low-grade slag equivalent to Nizhni-
Tagil slag, and 98% vanadium pentoxide, produced from high-grade South 
African slag, is the best available means to account for the 
substantial disparity between the material to be valued and the 
material from which the surrogate value is derived.
    We were also unable to obtain surrogate values for vanadium 
trioxide and pre-alloyed vanadium. As facts available, we valued these 
materials based on South African vanadium pentoxide and ferrovanadium 
prices, respectively, adjusted for differences in vanadium content.
    For sulfuric acid, we used the average, tax-exclusive, price 
reported by a South African vanadium producer.
    Finally, we were unable to identify any comparable surrogate value 
for the chemical input boron anhydride. The quantity of this material 
used to produce ferrovanadium is a very small amount. For the 
preliminary results, we have calculated NV without surrogate material 
costs for this factor.
    <bullet> To value truck and rail freight, we used the South African 
rail rate used in the LTFV investigation. We adjusted this rate for 
inflation, using a wholesale price index published by the International 
Monetary Fund. We relied on this rate for both truck and rail 
transportation of input materials and for foreign inland freight 
because we were unable to find any other suitable surrogate freight 
value.
    Tulachermet did not report the distance from its supplier of two 
packing materials. As facts available, we have used the farthest 
distance reported by Tulachermet for any supplier in calculating the 
surrogate freight costs for these materials.
    <bullet> For electricity, we used the average POR rate for 
industrial users as published by the South African state utility 
company, ESKOM. For natural gas, we used the South African POR price 
provided to us by ESKOM.
    <bullet> For labor, we used the skilled and unskilled wage rates 
for the South African metallurgical industry reported to us by a South 
African producer of vanadium.
    <bullet> For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses and profit, we calculated ratios from the 1995 Annual 
Report of the South African ferrovanadium manufacturer Highveld Steel 
and Vanadium Co., Ltd.

Preliminary Results

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                Exporter                        Period        (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galt Alloys, Inc........................    1/4/95-7/31/96        34.73 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of publication of this notice and any interested party may request a 
hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final 
results of the administrative review, which will include the results of 
its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at the 
hearing, within 120 days from the issuance of these preliminary 
results.
    The final results of this review shall be the basis for the 
assessment of antidumping dumping duties on entries of merchandise 
covered by the determination and for future deposits of estimated 
duties. The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences 
between EP and NV may vary from the percentages stated above. The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from the Russian 
Federation entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of the final results of this administrative 
review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rates for Galt will be the producer-specific rates established 
in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise 
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but 
covered in the original LTFV investigation and have a separate rate, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate 
published in the final determination or final results for which the 
manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) for 
Russian manufacturers or exporters not covered in the LTFV 
investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the Russia-
wide rate of 108.00 percent; and (4) the cash deposit rate for non-
Russian exporters of subject merchandise from Russia who were not 
covered in the LTFV investigation or in this administrative review, 
will also be the Russia-wide rate. These deposit rates, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply with 
this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and published in 
accordance with section 777(i).


[[Page 42496]]


    Dated: July 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-20734 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P