60226 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–840]

Manganese Metal From the People’s

Republic of China; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

of manganese metal from the People’s

Republic of China.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by

Elkem Metals Company and Kerr-McGee

Chemical Corporation and by China

Hunan International Economic

Development Corporation, China

Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan

Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals

Import & Export Associated

Corporation, Minmetals Precious & Rare

Minerals Import & Export Corporation,

and China National Electronics Import

and Export Hunan Company, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on manganese

metal from the People’s Republic of

China. The period of review is June 14,

1995 through January 31, 1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value. If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping

duties equal to the difference between

the export price and NV on all

appropriate entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

each argument (1) a statement of the

issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Lessard or Greg Campbell,

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Office I, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–1778 or (202) 482–

2239, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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, all

references to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR part 353 (April

1997).

Background

On February 6, 1996, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 4415) the antidumping duty order on

manganese metal from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC). On February 3,

1997, we published a notice of

opportunity to request an administrative

review of the order for the period June

14, 1995 through January 31, 1997 (62

FR 4978). In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a), Elkem Metals Company and

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation

(petitioners) and China Hunan

International Economic Development

Corporation (HIED), China Metallurgical

Import & Export Hunan Corporation/

Hunan Nonferrous Metals Import &

Export Associated Corporation

(CMIECHN/CNIECHN), and Minmetals

Precious & Rare Minerals Import &

Export Corporation (Minmetals)

requested that we conduct an

administrative review. On March 18,

1997, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(c), we published a notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review (62 FR 12793) for

the period of review (POR).

The Department is now conducting

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is manganese metal, which is

composed principally of manganese, by

weight, but also contains some

impurities such as carbon, sulfur,

phosphorous, iron and silicon.

Manganese metal contains by weight not

less than 95 percent manganese. All

compositions, forms and sizes of

manganese metal are included within

the scope of this administrative review,

including metal flake, powder,

compressed powder, and fines. The

subject merchandise is currently

classifiable under subheadings

8111.00.45.00 and 8111.00.60.00 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 of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified factor information

provided by Xiang Tan Manganese Mine

(XTMM) and Hunan Special Metal

Material Plant (Special), using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of manufacturers’

facilities, the examination of relevant

sales and financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public versions of the verification

reports.

Separate Rates

1. Background and Summary of

Findings

It is the Department’s standard policy

to assign all exporters of the

merchandise subject to review in nonmarket-economy (NME) countries a

single rate unless an exporter can

demonstrate an absence of government

control, both in law and in fact, with

respect to exports. To establish whether

an exporter is sufficiently independent

of government control to be entitled to

a separate rate, the Department analyzes

the exporter in light of the criteria

established in the Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Sparklers from the People’s Republic of

China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991)

(Sparklers), as amplified in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

People’s Republic of China (59 FR

22585, May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control over export

activities includes: (1) An absence of

restrictive stipulations associated with

an individual exporter’s business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. See

Sparklers at 20589. A de facto analysis

of absence of government control over

exports is based on four factors—

whether the respondent: (1) Sets its own

export prices independent from the

government and other exporters; (2) can

retain the proceeds from its export sales;

(3) has the authority to negotiate and

sign contracts; and (4) has autonomy

from the government regarding the

selection of management. See Silicon

Carbide at 22587; see also Sparklers at

20589.

In our final determination of sales at

less than fair value (LTFV), the

Department determined that there was

de jure and de facto absence of

government control of each company’s

export activities and determined that

each company warranted a company-
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices 60227

specific dumping margin. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Manganese Metal from the

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 56045

(Manganese Metal). For this period of

review, HIED and CMIECHN/CNIECHN

have responded to the Department’s

request for information regarding

separate rates. We have found that the

evidence on the record is consistent

with the final determination in the

LTFV investigation and continues to

demonstrate an absence of government

control, both in law and in fact, with

respect to their exports, in accordance

with the criteria identified in Sparklers

and Silicon Carbide.

For Minmetal and China National

Electronics Import and Export Hunan

Company (CEIEC), which had no sales

during this POR, the company-specific

rates of 5.88 percent and 11.77 percent,

respectively, from the LTFV

investigation remain unchanged.

Export Price

For sales made by HIED and

CMIECHN/CNIECHN to the United

States, we calculated an export price, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold to unrelated purchasers in the

United States prior to importation into

the United States.

We calculated export price based on

the price to unrelated purchasers. We

deducted an amount, when appropriate,

for foreign inland freight, ocean freight,

and marine insurance. Generally, the

costs for these items were valued in the

surrogate country. However, where

transportation services were purchased

from market economy carriers and paid

for in market economy currency, we

used the cost actually incurred by the

exporter.

Normal Value

For companies located in NME

countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act

provides that the Department shall

determine normal value (NV) using a

factors-of-production methodology if (1)

the merchandise is exported from an

NME country, and (2) the information

does not permit the calculation of NV

using home-market prices, third-country

prices, or constructed value under

section 773(a) of the Act.

The Department has treated the PRC

as an NME country in all previous

antidumping cases. In accordance with

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any

determination that a foreign country is

a NME country shall remain in effect

until revoked by the administering

authority. None of the parties to this

proceeding has contested such

treatment in this review. Furthermore,

available information does not permit

the calculation of NV using home

market prices, third country prices or

CV under section 773(a) of the Act.

Therefore, we treated the PRC as a NME

country for purposes of this review and

calculated NV by valuing the factors of

production in a comparable market

economy country which is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

Factors of production include, but are

not limited to: (1) Hours of labor

required; (2) quantities of raw materials

employed; (3) amounts of energy and

other utilities consumed; and (4)

representative capital cost, including

depreciation.

In accordance with section 773(c)(4)

of the Act and section 353.52(c) of our

regulations, we determined that India is

comparable to the PRC in terms of (1)

per capita gross national product (GNP),

(2) the growth rate in per capita GNP,

and (3) the national distribution of

labor. In addition, India is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

Therefore, for this review, we selected

India as the surrogate on the basis of the

above criteria, and have used publicly

available information relating to India,

unless otherwise noted, to value the

various factors of production. (See

memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from

Jeff May, dated May 28, 1997,

‘‘Manganese Metal from the PRC:

Nonmarket Economy Status and

Surrogate Country Selection’’ (attached

to June 25, 1997 letters to interested

parties), and memorandum to Richard

W. Moreland from Team, dated October

24, 1997, which are in the file in the

Central Records Unit (room B099 of the

Main Commerce building).)

For purposes of calculating NV, we

valued PRC factors of production, in

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the

Act. In examining surrogate values, we

selected, where possible, the publicly

available value which was: (1) An

average non-export value; (2)

representative of a range of prices

within the POR or most

contemporaneous with the POR; (3)

product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive.

Where we could not obtain a PORrepresentative price for an appropriate

surrogate value, we selected a value in

accordance with the remaining criteria

mentioned above and which was the

closest in time to the POR. In

accordance with this methodology, we

valued the factors as follows:

• We valued manganese ore using a

September 1993 export price quote from

a Brazilian manganese mine for

manganese carbonate lump ore. (For a

further discussion of this issue, please

refer to the October 24, 1997

memorandum to Richard W. Moreland

from Team.) While it is our normal

practice to apply an inflation

adjustment to prices predating the

period of review, in this case, we have

information which indicates that prices

for manganese ore have fallen over time.

Therefore, we adjusted the price to

account for declining manganese ore

prices between September 1993 and the

POR.

• For the value of process chemicals

used in the production process of

manganese metal, we used values

obtained from the following Indian

sources: Indian Chemical Weekly (June

95–May 1996); the Monthly Trade

Statistics of Foreign Trade of India,

Volume II—Imports, February 1996

(Indian Import Statistics); and the

Indian Minerals Yearbook: 1995. Where

necessary, we adjusted these values to

reflect inflation up to the POR using

wholesale price indices (WPI) published

by the International Monetary Fund

(IMF). Additionally, we adjusted to

account for freight costs incurred

between the suppliers and manganese

metal producers.

• For labor values, we used data from

the 1996 Yearbook of Labor Statistics

(YLS) published by the United Nations.

We adjusted these rates to reflect

inflation up to the POR using the

consumer price indices (CPI) published

by the IMF. We used the CPI, rather

than the WPI, for calculating the

inflation adjustment for labor because

the Department views the CPI as more

representative of changes in wage rates,

while the WPI is more representative of

prices for material goods.

• For factory overhead, selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A), and profit values, we used

information from the January 1997

Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for the

Indian industry group ‘‘Processing and

Manufacturing: Metals, Chemicals, and

Products Thereof.’’ To value factory

overhead, we calculated the ratio of

factory overhead expenses to the cost of

materials, labor, and energy. From the

same source, we were able to calculate

the selling, general & administrative

(SG&A) expense as a percentage of the

cost of manufacturing and profit as a

percentage of the cost of production

(i.e., the cost of manufacturing plus

SG&A).

• For most packing materials values,

we used the per kilogram values

obtained from the Indian Import

Statistics. For one packing material, we

used a price quote from an Indian

manufacturer and adjusted the value to

reflect inflation up to the POR using the

WPI published by the IMF. We used this

price quote rather than the Indian

Import Statistics because the quoted
60228 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices

price was for the appropriate type of

container used, whereas the Indian

Import Statistics were aggregated over

various types of containers. We made

further adjustments to account for

freight costs incurred between the PRC

supplier and manganese metal

producers.

• To value electricity, we used the

average rate applicable to large

industrial users throughout India as

reported in the 1995 Confederation of

Indian Industries Handbook of

Statistics. We adjusted the March 1,

1995 value to reflect inflation up to the

POR using the WPI published by the

IMF.

• To value rail freight, we relied upon

rates quoted by a manganese mine in

India. We adjusted the rate to reflect

inflation up to the POR using WPI

published by the IMF.

• To value truck freight, we used a

rate derived from a newspaper article in

the April 20, 1994 issue of The Times

of India. We adjusted the rate to reflect

inflation up to the POR using WPI

published by the IMF.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of the

EP to NV, we preliminarily determine

that the following dumping margins

exist for the period June 14, 1995,

through January 31, 1997:

Manufacturer exporter Margin

(percent)

HIED ......................................... 11.00

CMIECHN/CNIECHN ................ 6.43

Minmetals .................................. 5.88

CEIEC ....................................... 11.77

Country-Wide Rate ................... 143.32

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held

approximately 44 days after the

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may submit written comments

(case briefs) within 30 days of the date

of publication of this notice. Rebuttal

comments (rebuttal briefs), which must

be limited to issues raised in the case

briefs, may be filed not later than 37

days after the date of publication. The

Department will issue a notice of final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments, within 120 days of

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

EP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. We have

calculated an importer-specific duty

assessment rate based on the ratio of the

total amount of AD duties calculated for

the examined sales made during the

POR to the total value of subject

merchandise entered during the POR. In

order to estimate the entered value, we

subtracted international movement

expenses (e.g., international freight and

marine insurance) from the gross sales

value. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, 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)(1) of the Act: (1) for the

PRC companies that have separate rates

and were reviewed (HIED and CMIECN/

CNIECN), the cash deposit rates will be

the rates for these firms established in

the final results of this review; (2) for

Minmetals and CEIEC, which we

determined to be entitled to a separate

rate in the LTFV investigation but

which did not have shipments to the

United States during the POR, the rates

will continue to be 5.88 percent and

11.77 percent, respectively, the rates

which currently apply to these

companies; and (3) for all other PRC

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be

143.32 percent. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: October 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–29494 Filed 11–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–501]

Natural Bristle Paintbrushes and Brush

Heads From The People’s Republic of

China; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

the antidumping duty administrative

review of natural bristle paintbrushes

and brush heads from the People’s

Republic of China.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on natural

bristle paintbrushes and brush heads

(paintbrushes) from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC) in response to

a request by petitioner, the Paint

Applicator Division of the American

Brush Manufacturers Association (the

Paint Applicator Division). This review

covers shipments of this merchandise to

the United States during the period of

February 1, 1996, through January 31,

1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between export price and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

Scheier, Elisabeth Urfer, or Maureen

Flannery, Antidumping/Countervailing

Duty Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–4733.