21314 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

1As of February 15, 2001, Minerals Precious &

Rare Minerals Import and Export changed the name

of its company to China National Nonferrous Metals

Industry Trading Group Corp.

Suspension of liquidation will be

extended accordingly.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the

Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard

T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10690 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–864]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Pure Magnesium in Granular Form

From the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Nunno or Christopher Priddy,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 2,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0783 or

(202) 482–1130, respectively.

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’s regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that pure

magnesium in granular form (granular

pure magnesium) from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC) is being, or is

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value (LTFV), as provided

in section 733 of the Act. The estimated

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section

of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Pure Magnesium

from Israel, the Russian Federation, and

the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR

68121 (Nov. 14, 2000)) (Notice of

Initiation), the following events have

occurred:

On December 1, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary

injury determination in this case (see

ITC Investigation No. 731–TA–895–

897).

Also on December 1, 2000, the

petitioners in this case (i.e., the

Magnesium Corporation of America

(Magcorp) and the United Steel Workers

of America, Locals 482 and 8319)

requested that the Department modify

the scope of this investigation to

exclude certain magnesium products

that are prepared solely for use as a

desulfurizer in steel-making from the

scope of the investigation. On December

4, 2000, we received comments on the

scope of the investigation from ESM

Group, Inc. (ESM), a U.S. manufacturer

of magnesium powder and desulfurizing

reagents. In its submission, ESM

requested that the Department exclude

from the scope: (1) Magnesium-based

reagents, in accordance with the

petitioners’ intention not to capture

such products; and (2) pure magnesium

in granular form, because it is a separate

class or kind of merchandise from

magnesium ingots. For further

discussion, see the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ and ‘‘Comments on

Scope’’ sections of the notice, below.

On December 11, 2000, the

Department issued an antidumping

questionnaire to the Ministry of Foreign

Trade and Economic Cooperation

(MOFTEC) and requested that MOFTEC

forward the questionnaire to all

companies which manufactured and/or

exported the subject merchandise

during the period of investigation (POI).

We also sent courtesy copies of the

antidumping duty questionnaire to the

China Chamber of Commerce of Metals,

Minerals, and Chemicals Importers and

Exporters, and to each of the companies

identified in the petition as possible

exporters/producers of the subject

merchandise during the POI. The letters

provided to MOFTEC and those

companies identified in the petition as

producers and/or exporters of pure

magnesium provided deadlines for

responses to the different sections of the

questionnaire.

On January 9, 2001, the Department

received a section A questionnaire

response from Minmetals Precious &

Rare Minerals Import and Export

(Minmetals/CNNMIT).1 On January 23,

2001, the Department received section C

and D questionnaire responses from

Minmetals/CNNMIT and its suppliers,

Taiyuan Shi Geng Yang Enterprise

Company, Ltd. (Taiyuan) and Wealth

(HEBI) Co., Ltd. (HEBI). We issued

supplemental questionnaires to

Minmetals/CNNMIT, Taiyuan, and

HEBI and received responses to these

supplemental questionnaires in

February and March 2001.

On January 19, 2001, the Department

invited interested parties to comment on

surrogate country selection and to

provide publicly available information

for valuing the factors of production. We

received responses from both the

petitioners and Minmetals/CNNMIT on

February 13, 2001. The petitioners and

Minmetals/CNNMIT filed rebuttal

comments on surrogate values in

February and March 2001.

On March 1, 2001, pursuant to 19 CFR

351.205(e), the petitioners made a

timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination. We granted

this request and, on March 6, 2001,

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than April

23, 2001. See Notice of Postponement of

Preliminary Determinations of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium

From Israel, the Russian Federation,

and the People’s Republic of China and

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty

Determination With Final Antidumping

Duty Determinations: Pure Magnesium

From Israel, 66 FR 14546, 14547 (Mar.

13, 2001).

Postponement of the Final

Determination

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides

that a final determination may be

postponed until not later than 135 days

after the date of the publication of the

preliminary determination if, in the

event of an affirmative preliminary

determination, a request for such

postponement is made by exporters who

account for a significant proportion of

exports of the subject merchandise, or in

the event of a negative preliminary

determination, a request for such

postponement is made by the petitioner.

The Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by

respondents for postponement of a final

determination be accompanied by a

request for extension of provisional

measures from a four-month period to

not more than six months.

On April 12, 2001, Minmetals/

CNNMIT requested that, in the event of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21315

2The meaning of this term is the same as that

used by the American Society for Testing and

Materials in its Annual Book of ASTM Standards:

Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.

an affirmative preliminary

determination in this investigation, the

Department postpone its final

determination until 135 days after the

publication of the preliminary

determination. Minmetals/CNNMIT also

included a request to extend the

provisional measures to not more than

six months. Accordingly, since we have

made an affirmative preliminary

determination, we have postponed the

final determination until not later than

135 days after the date of the

publication of the preliminary

determination.

Scope of Investigation

There is an existing antidumping duty

order on pure magnesium from the PRC.

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders:

Pure Magnesium From the People’s

Republic of China, the Russian

Federation and Ukraine; Notice of

Amended Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping

Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium

From the Russian Federation, 60 FR

25691 (May 12, 1995). The scope of this

investigation excludes pure magnesium

that is already covered by the existing

order, and classifiable under 8104.11.00

and 8104.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

The scope of this investigation

includes imports of pure magnesium

products, regardless of chemistry,

including, without limitation, raspings,

granules, turnings, chips, powder, and

briquettes, except as noted above.

Pure magnesium includes: (1)

Products that contain at least 99.95

percent primary magnesium, by weight

(generally referred to as ‘‘ultra-pure’’

magnesium); (2) products that contain

less than 99.95 percent but not less than

99.8 percent pure magnesium, by weight

(generally referred to as ‘‘pure’’

magnesium); (3) chemical combinations

of pure magnesium and other material(s)

in which the pure magnesium content is

50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8

percent, by weight, and that do not

conform to an ‘‘ASTM Specification for

Magnesium Alloy’’ 2 (generally referred

to as ‘‘off-specification pure’’

magnesium); and (4) physical mixtures

of pure magnesium and other material(s)

in which the pure magnesium content is

50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8

percent, by weight, except that mixtures

containing 90 percent or less pure

magnesium, by weight, when mixed

with lime, calcium metal, calcium

silicon, calcium carbide, calcium

carbonate, carbon slag coagulants, and/

or fluorspar, are excluded.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classifiable under

8104.30.00 of the HTSUS. Although the

HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Comments on Scope

In accordance with our regulations,

we set aside a period of time for parties

to raise issues regarding product

coverage and encouraged all parties to

submit such comments within 20

calendar days of publication of the

Notice of Initiation. See Notice of

Initiation, 65 FR at 68123. On December

1, 2000, the petitioners requested that

the Department clarify that the scope of

this investigation excludes finished

mixtures containing pure magnesium

and/or off-specification pure

magnesium prepared solely for use as a

desulfurizer in steel-making, unless

such mixtures contain only minimal

amounts of non-magnesium materials in

order to circumvent an antidumping

order. On December 4, 2000, ESM

submitted a letter supporting the

petitioners’ position that magnesiumbased reagents should not be included

in the scope of the Department’s

investigation. On January 30, 2001, the

petitioners submitted proposed

language to further clarify their intent

with respect to the scope of this

investigation. Based on this submission,

we have revised the scope to exclude

reagent magnesium.

In its December 4 submission, ESM

also argued that pure magnesium ingot

and granular magnesium constitute

separate classes or kinds of merchandise

and that the Department should exclude

granular magnesium from the scope of

the investigation. However, we note that

the scope of the investigation includes

only granular magnesium. As a

consequence, ESM’s comments provide

no basis for altering the scope.

On April 10, 2001, Rossborough

Manufacturing Co., L.P., requested that

the Department amend the scope of this

investigation to exclude certain

additional reagent mixtures and imports

of granular magnesium used for making

reagent mixtures. Rossborough’s

submission was filed too late to be given

proper consideration for purposes of the

preliminary determination, but we will

consider these issues for the final

determination.

Period of Investigation

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the

POI for an investigation involving

merchandise from a non-market

economy is the two most recent fiscal

quarters prior to the month of the filing

of the petition (i.e., October 2000).

Therefore, in this case, the POI is April

1, 2000, through September 30, 2000.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

The Department has treated the PRC

as a nonmarket economy (NME) country

in all past antidumping investigations.

See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic

of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 (Dec. 31,

1998) (Mushrooms). A designation as a

NME remains in effect until it is

revoked by the Department. See section

771(18)(C) of the Act.

When the Department is investigating

imports from a NME country, section

773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base

normal value (NV) on the NME

producer’s factors of production, valued

in a comparable market economy that is

a significant producer of comparable

merchandise. The sources of individual

factor prices are discussed under the

‘‘Normal Value’’ section of the notice,

below.

No party in this investigation has

requested a revocation of the PRC’s

NME status. We have, therefore,

preliminarily continued to treat the PRC

as a NME.

Separate Rates

Minmetals/CNNMIT is owned by ‘‘the

whole people’’ and has provided the

separate rates information in its section

A response. Minmetals/CNNMIT has

stated that there is no element of

government ownership or control and

has requested a separate companyspecific rate.

As stated in Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR

22585, 25586 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon

Carbide) and Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR

22544, 25545 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl

Alcohol), ownership of the company by

‘‘all the people’’ does not require the

application of a single rate. Accordingly,

Minmetals/CNNMIT is eligible for

consideration of a separate rate.

The Department’s separate rate test is

not concerned, in general, with

macroeconomic/border-type controls

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and

minimum export prices), particularly if

these controls are imposed to prevent

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on

controls over the investment, pricing,

and output decision-making process at

the individual firm level. See Certain

21316 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

3This was unchanged in the final determination.

See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel

Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 54472, 54474 (Oct. 24,

1995)

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754,

61757 (Nov. 19, 1997); Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, from the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (Nov. 17,

1997); and Honey from the People’s

Republic of China: Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value, 60 FR 14725, 14726 (Mar. 20,

1995).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control to be entitled to a

separate rate, the Department analyzes

each exporting entity under a test

arising out of the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers

from the People’s Republic of China, 56

FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991), as

modified by Silicon Carbide. Under the

separate rates criteria, the Department

assigns separate rates in NME cases only

if the respondents can demonstrate the

absence of both de jure and de facto

governmental control over export

activities. See Silicon Carbide and

Furfuryl Alcohol.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The Department considers the

following de jure criteria in determining

whether an individual company may be

granted a separate rate: (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.

Minmetals/CNNMIT has placed on

the record a number of documents to

demonstrate absence of de jure control,

including the ‘‘Law of the People’s

Republic of China on Industrial

Enterprises Owned By the Whole

People,’’ and the 1992 regulations that

supplemented it, ‘‘Provisions on

Changing the Systems of Business

Operations for State Owned

Enterprises.’’

In prior cases, the Department has

analyzed these laws and found that they

establish an absence of de jure control.

See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determination: Certain PartialExtension Steel Drawer Slides With

Rollers From the People’s Republic of

China, 60 FR 29571, 29573 (June 5,

1995); 3 Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Manganese Metal From the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 56045, 56046

(Nov. 6, 1995). We have no new

information in this proceeding which

would cause us to reconsider this

determination. For the purposes of this

investigation and in prior cases, the

Department has also analyzed the

‘‘Industrial Enterprises Law’’ and found

that this law establishes mechanisms for

private control of companies which

indicate an absence of de jure control.

See Pure Magnesium from the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of New

Shipper Review, 63 FR 3085, 3086 (Jan.

21, 1998).

According to Minmetals/CNNMIT,

pure magnesium exports are not affected

by export licensing provisions or export

quotas. Minmetals/CNNMIT claims to

have autonomy in setting the contract

prices for sales of granular pure

magnesium through independent price

negotiations with its foreign customers

without interference from the PRC

government. Based on the assertions of

Minmetals/CNNMIT, we preliminarily

determine that there is an absence of de

jure government control over the pricing

and marketing decisions of Minmetals/

CNNMIT with respect to its granular

pure magnesium export sales.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

As stated in previous cases, there is

some evidence that certain enactments

of the PRC central government have not

been implemented uniformly among

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in

the PRC. See Mushrooms, 63 FR at

72257. Therefore, the Department has

determined that an analysis of de facto

control is critical in determining

whether respondents are, in fact, subject

to a degree of governmental control

which would preclude the Department

from assigning separate rates.

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by, or subject to, the approval of

a governmental authority; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts, and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of its management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses. See Id.

Minmetals/CNNMIT has asserted the

following: (1) It establishes its own

export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts

without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations;

(3) it makes its own personnel

decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds

of its export sales, uses profits according

to its business needs, and has the

authority to sell its assets and to obtain

loans. Additionally, Minmetals/

CNNMIT’s questionnaire responses

indicate that it does not coordinate with

other exporters in setting prices or in

determining which companies will sell

to which markets. This information

supports a preliminary finding that

there is an absence of de facto

governmental control of the export

functions of these companies.

Consequently, we preliminarily

determine that Minmetals/CNNMIT has

met the criteria for the application of

separate rates.

PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts

Otherwise Available

As in all NME cases, the Department

implements a policy whereby there is a

rebuttable presumption that all

exporters or producers located in the

NME comprise a single exporter under

common government control, the ‘‘NME

entity.’’ The Department assigns a single

NME rate to the NME entity unless an

exporter can demonstrate eligibility for

a separate rate.

Information on the record of this

investigation indicates that there are

numerous producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise in the PRC. As

noted in the ‘‘Case History’’ section

above, all exporters were given the

opportunity to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire. Based upon

our knowledge of PRC exporters and the

fact that U.S. import statistics show that

responding companies did not account

for all imports into the United States

from the PRC, we have preliminarily

determined that PRC exporters of

granular pure magnesium failed to

respond to our questionnaire.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that if an interested party or any other

person (A) withholds information that

has been requested by the administering

authority; (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadlines for the

submission of the information or in the

form and manner requested, subject to

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782

of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a

proceeding under this title; or (D)

provides such information but the

information cannot be verified as

provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21317

administering authority shall, subject to

section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this

title.

Section 776(b) of the Act further

provides that adverse inferences may be

used when a party has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information. The producers/exporters

that decided not to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire failed to act

to the best of their ability in this

investigation. Absent a response, we

must presume government control of

these companies. See, e.g., Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the

People’s Republic of China, 61 FR

19026, 19028 (Apr. 30, 1996); Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled

Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel

Products From the Russian Federation,

65 FR 5510, 5518 (Feb. 4, 2000).

Moreover, the Department has

determined that, in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available, an

adverse inference is warranted.

In accordance with our standard

practice, as adverse facts available, we

are assigning as the PRC-wide rate the

higher of: (1) The highest margin stated

in the notice of initiation; or (2) the

highest margin calculated for any

respondent in this investigation. See,

e.g., Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel

Products from the People’s Republic of

China, 64 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000) and

accompanying decision memorandum at

Comment 1. In this case, the

preliminary adverse facts available

margin is 305.56 percent, which is the

highest margin stated in the notice of

initiation. See Notice of Initiation, 65 FR

at 68124.

Section 776(b) of the Act states that an

adverse inference may include reliance

on information derived from the

petition. See also SAA at 870. Section

776(c) of the Act provides that, when

the Department relies on secondary

information (such as the petition) in

using the facts otherwise available, it

must, to the extent practicable,

corroborate that information from

independent sources that are reasonably

at its disposal.

The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’

means that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value. See SAA at

870. The SAA also states that

independent sources used to corroborate

such evidence may include, for

example, published price lists, official

import statistics, and customs data, and

information obtained from interested

parties during the particular

investigation. See SAA at 870.

In order to determine the probative

value of the margins in the petition for

use as adverse facts available for

purposes of this determination, we

examined evidence supporting the

calculations in the petition. In

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act, to the extent practicable, we

examined the key elements of the export

price (EP) and NV calculations on

which the margins in the petitions were

based.

In order to corroborate the petition’s

EP calculations, we compared the prices

in the petition for granular pure

magnesium to the prices submitted by

Minmetals/CNNMIT. In order to

corroborate the petitioners’ NV

calculation, we compared the

petitioners’ factor consumption and

surrogate value data for granular pure

magnesium to the data reported by

Taiyuan and HEBI for the most

significant factors—material inputs,

energy, labor, factory overhead, and

selling, general, and administrative

(SG&A) expenses, and profit—and to the

values selected for the preliminary

determination, as discussed below.

As discussed in the April 23, 2001,

memorandum from the team to the file

entitled ‘‘Corroboration of Data

Contained in the Petition for Assigning

an Adverse Facts Available Rate,’’ we

found that the U.S. price and factors of

production information in the petition

to be reasonable and of probative value.

As a number of the surrogate values

selected for the preliminary

determination differed from those used

in the petition, notably the values for

ferrosilicon, dolomite, electricity, and

coal, we compared the petition margin

calculations to the calculations based on

the selected surrogate values wherever

possible and found they were

reasonably close. Therefore, we

preliminarily determine that the

petition information continues to have

probative value. Accordingly, we find

that the highest margin stated in the

notice of initiation, 305.56 percent, is

corroborated within the meaning of

section 776(c) of the Act.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by Minmetals/

CNNMIT for export to or within the

United States were made at LTFV, we

compared the EP to the NV, as described

in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice, below. In

accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs to the NV.

Export Price

For Minmetals/CNNMIT, we used EP

methodology in accordance with section

772(a) of the Act because the subject

merchandise was sold directly to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States prior to importation and

constructed export price methodology

was not otherwise appropriate. We

calculated EP based on packed CIF

prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser

in the United States. Where appropriate,

we made deductions from the starting

price for foreign inland freight from the

plant to the port of export, foreign

brokerage and handling, marine

insurance, and ocean freight. As certain

of these movement services were

provided by NME suppliers, we valued

them using Indian rates. For further

discussion of our use of surrogate data

in an NME proceeding, as well as

selection of India as the appropriate

surrogate country, see the ‘‘Normal

Value’’ section of this notice, below.

For foreign inland freight we used

price quotes obtained by the Department

from Indian truck freight companies in

November 1999. These price quotes

were recently used in the administrative

review of persulfates from the PRC, and

were also used in the investigation of

bulk aspirin from the PRC. See

Persulfates from the People’s Republic

of China: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, and Partial Rescission of

Administrative Review, 66 FR 18439,

18441 (Apr. 9, 2001) (Persulfates 1999–

2000 Preliminary Results); Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin

From the People’s Republic of China, 65

FR 116, 118 (Jan. 3, 2000).

With respect to foreign brokerage and

handling, marine insurance and ocean

freight, Minmetals/CNNMIT asserted

that it used market-economy suppliers

for its shipments of granular pure

magnesium. However, based on the

submitted information, we could not

establish that the brokerage and

handling and marine insurance

expenses Minmetals/CNNMIT paid

reflect prices set by market-economy

carriers. Specifically, we found that

Minmetals/CNNMIT was unable to

demonstrate that its brokerage and

handling expenses were invoiced in a

market-economy currency. Furthermore,

marine insurance was paid to a PRC

company, not a market-economy

supplier. Regarding ocean freight, while

Minmetals/CNNMIT did provide an

invoice from a market-economy supplier

in a market-economy currency, it was

21318 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

4Nonetheless, we have used this information as

a surrogate value because it is a price set by a

market-economy supplier in U.S. dollars for

transporting the subject merchandise during the

POI. As such, we find that it represents a better

surrogate value than the other surrogate information

on the record of this case (i.e., the 1996 data

obtained from the Federal Maritime Commission

found in the IA website and used in the petition).

5This was unchanged in the final results. See

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of 1998–1999

Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of

Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in

Part, 66 FR 1953 (Jan. 10, 2001) (TRBs 1998–1999

Final Results).

unable to demonstrate that it paid for

this expense in such currency.4 For

further discussion, see the April 23,

2001, concurrence memorandum from

the team. Therefore, in accordance with

our practice, we based these charges on

surrogate values. See, e.g., Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen

Apple Juice Concentrate from the

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 19873

(Apr. 13, 2000) and accompanying

decision memorandum at Comment 3;

and Sebacic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 65 FR 49537 (Aug. 14, 2000)

(Sebacic Acid 1998–1999 Final Results)

and accompanying decision

memorandum at Comment 8.

Accordingly, we valued foreign

brokerage and handling expenses using

public information reported in the new

shipper review of stainless steel wire

rod from India. See Certain Stainless

Steel Wire Rod From India; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative and New Shipper

Reviews, 63 FR 48184, 48185 (Sept. 9,

1998); see also the ‘‘Preliminary

Determination Factors Valuation

Memorandum from the Team to the

File,’’ dated April 23, 2001, at page 6

(Factors Memorandum). For marine

insurance we used the June 1998 marine

insurance data used in Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, From the People’s

Republic of China; Preliminary Results

of 1998–1999 Administrative Review,

Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice

of Intent To Revoke Order in Part, 65 FR

41944, 41948 (July 7, 2000).5 For ocean

freight we used the freight expense

reported by the respondent as a

surrogate value, for the reasons noted

above. Where appropriate, we adjusted

the values to reflect inflation up to the

POI using the wholesale price indices

(WPI) or producer price indices (PPI)

published by the International Monetary

Fund (IMF).

Normal Value

A. Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires

the Department to value the NME

producer’s factors of production, to the

extent possible, in one or more market

economy countries that: (1) Are at a

level of economic development

comparable to that of the NME country,

and (2) are significant producers of

comparable merchandise. The

Department has determined that India,

Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the

Philippines are countries comparable to

the PRC in terms of overall economic

development. See Memorandum from

Jeffrey May to Louis Apple, dated

January 18, 2001.

According to the available

information on the record, we have

determined that both India and

Indonesia meet the statutory

requirements for an appropriate

surrogate country for the PRC. For

purposes of the preliminary

determination, we have selected India

as the surrogate country, based on the

quality and contemporaneity of the

currently available data. Accordingly,

we have calculated NV using Indian

values for the PRC producers’ factors of

production. We have obtained and

relied upon publicly available

information wherever possible.

B. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by

Minmetals/CNNMIT for the POI. To

calculate NV, the reported per-unit

factor quantities were multiplied by

publicly available Indian surrogate

values.

For purposes of calculating NV, we

valued PRC factors of production, in

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

Act. 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 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 POI or most

contemporaneous with the POI; (3)

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

For a more detailed explanation of the

methodology used in calculating various

surrogate values, see the Factors

Memorandum. In accordance with this

methodology, we valued the factors of

production as follows:

In selecting the surrogate values, we

considered the quality, specificity, and

contemporaneity of the data. As

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by

including freight costs to make them

delivered prices. We added to Indian

surrogate values surrogate freight costs

using the shorter of the reported

distance from the domestic supplier to

the factory or the distance from the

nearest seaport to the factory. This

adjustment is in accordance with the

Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corporation

v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–

08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For foreign inland

freight on inputs we used price quotes

obtained by the Department from Indian

truck freight companies in November

1999. As noted above, these price quotes

were used in Persulfates 1999–2000

Preliminary Results, and were also used

in the investigation of bulk aspirin from

the PRC. With regard to rail freight, we

based our calculation on information

from the Indian Railway Conference

Association. Where appropriate, we

adjusted the values to reflect inflation

up to the POI using the WPI published

by the IMF.

We valued fluorite powder using 1998

Indian import statistics as published by

the United Nations. We valued

ferrosilicon and dolomite using price

quotes obtained by Minmetals/CNNMIT

from Tata International Limited, an

Indian producer of ferro-alloys. Where

appropriate, we adjusted the values to

reflect inflation up to the POI using the

WPI published by the IMF.

We valued labor based on a

regression-based wage rate, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value coal, we relied on import

prices contained in the March 1999

issue of Monthly Statistics of the

Foreign Trade of India. These data were

used in the antidumping duty

administrative review of persulfates

from the PRC. See Persulfates 1999–

2000 Preliminary Results, 66 FR at

18442. We adjusted the values to reflect

inflation up to the POI using the WPI

published by the IMF. For electricity,

we derived a surrogate value based on

1998/1999 electricity price data

published by Tata Energy Research

Institute. These data were used in the

antidumping duty administrative review

of manganese metal from the PRC. See

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review of

Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China, 66 FR 15076 (Mar.

15, 2001) and accompanying decision

memorandum at Comment 10. See also

Persulfates 1999–2000 Preliminary

Results, 66 FR at 18442. We adjusted the

electricity values to reflect inflation up

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21319

to the POI using the electricity-specific

price index published by the Reserve

Bank of India.

We valued grinding services provided

by a subcontractor using the factors of

production reported for this company,

because we were unable to obtain a

surrogate value for its services.

Specifically, we valued the labor and

electricity factors of production using

the same sources noted above. In

addition, we added amounts for factory

overhead, depreciation, SG&A expenses,

and interest expenses derived from the

financial statements of Southern

Magnesium and Chemicals Ltd., an

Indian magnesium metal producer. This

information was supplied by the

petitioners in the petition. Because

these financial statements showed a

loss, we calculated a profit ratio using

the 1998/1999 financial aggregates and

ratios data published by the Economic

Intelligence Service and the Centre for

Monitoring Indian Economy. This

information was supplied by

Minmetals/CNNMIT in its February 13,

2001, surrogate value submission. For

further discussion, see the April 23,

2001, concurrence memorandum from

the team.

To value plastic bags, plastic wrapper,

and wooden pallets (i.e., the packing

materials reported by the respondent),

we used import values from the Monthly

Statistics.

To determine factory overhead,

depreciation, SG&A expenses, and

interest expenses, and profit for the

finished product, we relied on rates

derived from the financial statements

noted above.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we intend to verify all information

relied upon in making our final

determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2)

of the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of any

entries of pure magnesium from PRC

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date on

which this notice is published in the

Federal Register. We will instruct the

Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or the posting of a bond equal

to the weighted-average amount by

which the NV exceeds the EP, as

indicated in the chart below. These

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

Minmetals Precious & Rare Minerals Import and Export/China

National Nonferrous Metals Industry Trading Group Corp ......... 8.76

PRC-wide ........................................ 305.56

The PRC-wide rate applies to all

entries of the subject merchandise

except for entries from exporters/

producers that are identified

individually above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Disclosure

We will disclose the calculations used

in our analysis to parties in this

proceeding within five days of the

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR

351.224(b).

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later than one week

after the issuance of the verification

reports. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

within five days after the deadline for

submission of case briefs. A list of

authorities used, a table of contents, and

an executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. Executive summaries

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective

January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is

fulfilling the duties of the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10684 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–813]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value:

Pure Magnesium From the Russian

Federation

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Nunno or Christopher Priddy,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 2,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0783 or

(202) 482–1130, respectively.

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’s regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that pure

magnesium from the Russian Federation

(Russia) is not being, nor is likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value (LTFV), as provided in section

733(b) of the Act.