27090 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure 

Magnesium From the People’s Republic of China, 

the Russian Federation and Ukraine, 60 FR 25691 

(May 12, 1995). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 24532 

(May 5, 2008). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Requests for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 37409 (July 

1, 2008). 

likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a 

reasonably foreseeable future. See 

Saccharin from China, 74 FR 26257 

(June 1, 2009), and USITC Publication 

4077 (May 2009). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this 

antidumping duty order is saccharin. 

Saccharin is defined as a non–nutritive 

sweetener used in beverages and foods, 

personal care products such as 

toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and 

animal feeds. It is also used in 

metalworking fluids. There are four 

primary chemical compositions of 

saccharin: (1) Sodium saccharin 

(American Chemical Society Chemical 

Abstract Service (‘‘CAS’’) Registry 128– 

44–9); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS 

Registry 6485–34–3); (3) acid (or 

insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81– 

07–2); and (4) research grade saccharin. 

Most of the U.S.-produced and imported 

grades of saccharin from the PRC are 

sodium and calcium saccharin, which 

are available in granular, powder, 

spray–dried powder, and liquid forms. 

The merchandise subject to this order is 

currently classifiable under subheading 

2925.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) and includes all types of 

saccharin imported under this HTSUS 

subheading, including research and 

specialized grades. Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

scope of this order remains dispositive. 

Continuation of the Order 

As a result of these determinations by 

the Department and the ITC that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would likely lead to a 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and material injury to an industry in the 

United States, pursuant to section 

751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department 

hereby orders the continuation of the 

antidumping order on saccharin from 

the PRC. United States Customs and 

Border Protection will continue to 

collect antidumping duty cash deposits 

at the rates in effect at the time of entry 

for all imports of subject merchandise. 

The effective date of the continuation of 

the order will be the date of publication 

in the Federal Register of this notice of 

continuation. Pursuant to section 

751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department 

intends to initiate the next five-year 

review of the order not later than 30 

days prior to the fifth anniversary of the 

effective date of continuation. 

This five-year (sunset) review and this 

notice are in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and published 

pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 3, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13487 Filed 6–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–832] 

Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of 2007–2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on pure 

magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period 

May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008. 

This administrative review covers one 

exporter of the subject merchandise. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that the respondent in this 

administrative review made sales in the 

United States at prices below normal 

value during the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

the importer–specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments are 

requested to submit with each argument 

a summary of the argument. We intend 

to issue the final results no later than 

120 days from the date of publication of 

this notice, pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katharine Huang or Eugene Degnan, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1271 and (202) 

482–0414, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 12, 1995, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on pure 

magnesium from the PRC.1 On May 5, 

2008, the Department published a notice 

of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on pure 

magnesium from the PRC for the period 

May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008.2

On May 29, 2008, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(b)(2), Tianjin Magnesium 

International, Co. Ltd. (‘‘TMI’’), a foreign 

exporter of the subject merchandise 

requested that the Department review its 

sales of subject merchandise. On May 

30, 2008, US Magnesium LLC 

(‘‘Petitioner’’) also requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of TMI’s exports of subject 

merchandise. On July 1, 2008, the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review of the order on pure magnesium 

from the PRC for the POR with respect 

to TMI. On September 11, 2008, the 

Department issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to TMI.3 On October 14, 

2008, TMI submitted its Section A 

questionnaire response (‘‘TMI’s AQR’’). 

On October 29, 2008, TMI submitted its 

Section C and D questionnaire 

responses (‘‘TMI’s CQR’’ and ‘‘TMI’s 

DQR,’’ respectively). On November 12, 

2008, Petitioner submitted comments on 

TMI’s AQR, CQR, and DQR. On 

February 23, 2009, Petitioner submitted 

comments concerning TMI’s request for 

by–product offsets. On March 16, 2009, 

the Department issued the first 

supplemental questionnaire to TMI. On 

April 6, 2009, TMI submitted its 

response to the Section A and Section 

C supplemental questionnaire (‘‘TMI’s 

1st SAQR’’ and ‘‘TMI’s 1st SCQR,’’ 

respectively). On April 8, 2009, TMI 

submitted its response to the Section D 

supplemental questionnaire (‘‘TMI’s 1st 

SDQR’’). On May 4, 2009, the 

Department issued the second 

supplemental questionnaire to TMI and 

the Department received a response on 

May 11, 2009 (‘‘TMI’s 2nd SQR’’). 

On February 9, 2009, the Department 

extended the time period for completion 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27091 

4See Pure Magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China: Extension of Time for the Preliminary 

Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009). 5See Memorandum ‘‘Request for SurrogateCountry Selection: 2007-2008 Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Pure 

Magnesium from the People’s Republic of China’’ 

(February 6, 2009) 6See Memorandum ‘‘Request for SurrogateCountry Selection: 2007-2008 Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Pure 

Magnesium from the People’s Republic of China’’ 

(February 20, 2009) (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 

7See Letter from Robert Bolling to All Interested 

Parties, Re: Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated February 20, 2009. 

8See Letter from Wendy J. Frankel, Office 

Director, to Stephen Jones, Petitioner’s counsel, Re: 

Rejection of Petitioner’s 3/20/2009 Surrogate Value 

Submission, dated April 13, 2009. 

9On May 28, 2009, the Department placed a 

memorandum on the file, stating the reasons that 

the Department would not reject Petitioner’s 5/8/ 

2009 Comments Concerning the Preliminary Results 

as TMI requested. 

10See 771(18)(C) of the Act; see, e.g., Pure 

Magnesium from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16, 2008); and 

Frontseating Service Valves From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 

10886 (March 13, 2009). 

11See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, regarding the People’s Republic of 

China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated May 

15, 2006. This document is available online at: 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prcnme-status-memo.pdf. 

12See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. 

of the preliminary results of this review 

by 120 days until May 31, 2009.4

On February 6, 2009, the Department 

requested that the Office of Policy 

provide a list of surrogate countries for 

this review.5 On February 20, 2009, the 

Office of Policy issued its list of 

surrogate countries.6 On February 20, 

2009, the Department issued a letter to 

interested parties seeking comments on 

surrogate country selection and 

surrogate values. On March 6, 2009, 

Petitioner and TMI submitted comments 

on surrogate country selection 

(‘‘Petitioner’s Surrogate Country 

Selection Letter’’ and ‘‘TMI’s Surrogate 

Country Selection Letter,’’ respectively). 

On March 20, 2009, Petitioner and TMI 

submitted surrogate value comments 

(‘‘Petitioner’s 3/20/2009 Surrogate Value 

Comments’’ and ‘‘TMI’s 3/20/2009 

Surrogate Value Comments,’’ 

respectively). On March 30, 2009, TMI 

and Petitioner submitted additional and 

rebuttal surrogate value information 

(‘‘TMI’s 3/30/2009 Surrogate Value 

Comments’’ and ‘‘Petitioner’s 3/30/2009 

Surrogate Value Comments,’’ 

respectively). On April 9, 2009, TMI 

submitted additional rebuttal surrogate 

value information (‘‘TMI’s 4/9/2009 

Surrogate Value Comments’’). 

On April 13, 2009, the Department 

found that Exhibit 5 of the Petitioner’s 

3/20/2009 Surrogate Value Comments 

did not conform to the requirements of 

19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) of the 

Department’s regulations, which 

provides for the submission of only 

‘‘publicly available information to value 

factors.’’7 Accordingly, the Department 

rejected this submission.8 The 

Department allowed Petitioner to re– 

submit its surrogate value comments as 

a public document without business 

proprietary information, and with no 

substantive changes to the document 

other than to delete or make public the 

bracketed information contained in 

Exhibit 5 of Petitioner’s 3/20/2009 

Surrogate Value Submission. On April 

16, 2009, Petitioner re–submitted its 

surrogate value comments and made 

public the previously bracketed 

information contained in Exhibit 5 

(‘‘Petitioner’s 4/16/2009 Surrogate Value 

Comments’’). On May 8, 2009, Petitioner 

submitted comments concerning the 

upcoming preliminary results 

(‘‘Petitioner’s 5/8/2009 Comments 

Concerning the Preliminary Results’’). 

On May 13, 2009, TMI submitted a 

letter, requesting the Department reject 

Petitioner’s 5/8/2009 Comments 

Concerning the Preliminary Results.9

Period of Review 

The POR is May 1, 2007, through 

April 30, 2008. 

Scope of Order 

Merchandise covered by this order is 

pure magnesium regardless of 

chemistry, form or size, unless expressly 

excluded from the scope of this order. 

Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy 

containing by weight primarily the 

element magnesium and produced by 

decomposing raw materials into 

magnesium metal. Pure primary 

magnesium is used primarily as a 

chemical in the aluminum alloying, 

desulfurization, and chemical reduction 

industries. In addition, pure magnesium 

is used as an input in producing 

magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium 

encompasses products (including, but 

not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns 

and crystals) with the following primary 

magnesium contents: 

(1) Products that contain at least 

99.95% primary magnesium, by 

weight (generally referred to as 

‘‘ultra pure’’ magnesium); 

(2) Products that contain less than 

99.95% but not less than 99.8% 

primary magnesium, by weight 

(generally referred to as ‘‘pure’’ 

magnesium); and 

(3) Products that contain 50% or 

greater, but less than 99.8% primary 

magnesium, by weight, and that do 

not conform to ASTM specifications 

for alloy magnesium (generally 

referred to as ‘‘off–specification 

pure’’ magnesium). 

‘‘Off–specification pure’’ magnesium 

is pure primary magnesium containing 

magnesium scrap, secondary 

magnesium, oxidized magnesium or 

impurities (whether or not intentionally 

added) that cause the primary 

magnesium content to fall below 99.8% 

by weight. It generally does not contain, 

individually or in combination, 1.5% or 

more, by weight, of the following 

alloying elements: aluminum, 

manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, 

zirconium and rare earths. 

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are alloy primary magnesium (that 

meets specifications for alloy 

magnesium), primary magnesium 

anodes, granular primary magnesium 

(including turnings, chips and powder) 

having a maximum physical dimension 

(i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or 

less, secondary magnesium (which has 

pure primary magnesium content of less 

than 50% by weight), and remelted 

magnesium whose pure primary 

magnesium content is less than 50% by 

weight. 

Pure magnesium products covered by 

this order are currently classifiable 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) 

subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 

8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 

3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope is dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy Country Status 

The Department has treated the PRC 

as a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country in all past antidumping duty 

investigations and administrative 

reviews and continues to do so in this 

case.10 The Department has previously 

examined the PRC’s market economy 

status and determined that NME status 

should continue for the PRC.11 In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority.12 No interested 

party to this proceeding has contested 

such treatment. Accordingly, we 

calculated normal value (‘‘NV’’) in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, which applies to NME countries. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27092 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

13See section 773(c)(1) of the Act. 14See section 773(c)(4) of the Act. 15See 19 CFR 351.308(c)(2). 16See Memorandum to the File, Preliminary 

Results of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Pure Magnesium 

from the People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Value Memorandum, dated June 1, 2009 (‘‘Factor 

Valuation Memorandum’’). 17See Memorandum to Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, From Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of 

Policy, Re: Administrative Review of Pure 

Magnesium from the People’s Republic of China: 

Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated 

December 20, 2008 (‘‘Surrogate Country 

Memorandum’’). 18See 2002 Annual Report of Southern 

Magnesium, contained in Petitioner’s Surrogate 

Country Selection Letter, at 3 and Exhibit 2. 

19See Petitioner’s Surrogate Country Selection 

Letter, at 3, citing the Final Results of 2006-2007 

Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the 

People’s Republic of China (December 16, 2008), 

and accompanying Issue and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6.D. 

20See Petitioner’s Surrogate Country Selection 

Letter, at 5, citing The Mineral Industry of India - 

2006, at Table 2, U.S. Geological Survey (‘‘USGS’’), 

contained in Exhibit 3; also, citing USGS Minerals 

Yearbook, Zinc-2006 at Table 16, contained in 

Exhibit 4. 

21See Petitioner’s Surrogate Country Selection 

Letter, at 5, citing Pure Magnesium From the 

Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 

2001), at Comment 1. 

22See Petitioner’s Surrogate Country Selection, at 

5, citing USGS Minerals Yearbook, Zinc - 2006, at 

Table 16, contained in Exhibit 4. 

23 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for 

the final determination of this review, interested 

parties may submit factual information to rebut, 

clarify, or correct factual information submitted by 

an interested party less than ten days before, on, or 

after the applicable deadline for submission of such 

factual information. However, the Department notes 

that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information 

only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects 

information recently placed on the record. The 

Department generally cannot accept the submission 

of additional, previously absent-from-the-record 

alternative SV information pursuant to 19CFR 

351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, 

in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV 

on the NME producer’s factors of 

production (‘‘FOPs’’). The Act further 

instructs that valuation of the FOPs 

shall be based on the best available 

information in a surrogate market 

economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department.13 When valuing the FOPs, 

the Department shall utilize, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of 

FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are: (1) at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise.14 Further, the Department 

normally values all FOPs in a single 

surrogate country.15 The sources of 

surrogate value are discussed under the 

‘‘Normal Value’’ section below and in 

the Factor Valuation Memorandum, 

which is on file in the Central Records 

Unit, Room 1117 of the main 

Department building.16

In examining which country to select 

as its primary surrogate country for this 

proceeding, the Department first 

determined that India, Indonesia, the 

Philippines, Columbia, Thailand, and 

Peru are countries comparable to the 

PRC in terms of economic 

development.17 In Petitioner’s Surrogate 

Country Selection Letter, Petitioner 

contends that the Department should 

continue to select India as the surrogate 

country for this administrative review, 

as it has in previous proceedings. Also, 

Petitioner maintains that to the best of 

its knowledge, there are no magnesium 

producers currently operating in any of 

the six countries identified in the 

Surrogate Country Memorandum. 

Petitioner states that Southern 

Magnesium & Chemicals Ltd. 

(‘‘Southern Magnesium’’), which is 

located in India, has either downsized 

or ceased its magnesium production 

operations.18 Petitioner argues, 

however, that India is a significant 

producer of aluminum and the 

Department has ‘‘routinely determined 

that aluminum is a product comparable 

to magnesium production.’’19 Petitioner 

states that India has five major 

producers of aluminum.20 Additionally, 

Petitioner contends that the Department 

determined that zinc is the only other 

merchandise that the Department had 

found to be comparable to 

magnesium,21 and India is a significant 

producer of zinc.22 Finally, Petitioner 

contends that India is the best available 

surrogate country for this proceeding 

because India is known to have 

complete, up–to-date, and reliable 

publicly available information for all 

raw material factors of production. 

Petitioner states that India is the only 

potential surrogate country that can be 

a source for surrogate financial ratios 

because India is a significant producer 

of aluminum and zinc. 

In TMI’s Surrogate Country Selection 

Letter, TMI contends that India is the 

most appropriate surrogate country for 

the PRC in this review. TMI reiterates 

the reasons that the Department used in 

its determination to use India as the 

appropriate surrogate country in the 06– 

07 administrative review of pure 

magnesium from the PRC: (1) India is at 

a level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC; (2) India is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise; and (3) the Department 

has reliable data to use from India. Both 

Petitioner and TMI submitted Indian 

sourced data to value FOPs. 

After evaluating interested parties’ 

comments, the Department has 

determined that India is the appropriate 

surrogate country to use in this review 

in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 

the Act. The Department based its 

decision on the following facts: (1) India 

is at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India 

is a significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, i.e., aluminum and zinc; 

and (3) India provides the best 

opportunity to use quality, publicly 

available data to value the FOPs. On the 

record of this review, we have usable 

surrogate financial data from India, but 

no such surrogate financial data from 

any other potential surrogate country. 

Additionally, all the data submitted by 

both Petitioner and TMI for our 

consideration as potential surrogate 

values are sourced from India. 

Therefore, because India best 

represents the experience of producers 

of comparable merchandise operating in 

a surrogate country, we have selected 

India as the surrogate country and, 

accordingly, have calculated NV using 

Indian prices to value TMI’ FOPs, when 

available and appropriate. We have 

obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value the FOPs within 20 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination.23

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of subject 

merchandise in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate 

this independence through the absence 

of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27093 

24See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 25See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 26See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s 

Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 

1995). 

27See TMI’s AQR, at 7; see also the contract and 

the purchase order between TMI and a U.S. 

Customer contained in TMI’s AQR at Exhibit A-6. 

28See the purchase contracts between TMI and its 

producers contained in TMI’s 1st SAQR at Exhibit 

SA-6A and Exhibit SA-6B. 

29See TMI’s AQR at 8-9. 

30See TMI’s AQR at 8-9. 

31See Memorandum ‘‘Analysis for the 

Preliminary Results of Pure Magnesium from the 

People’s Republic of China: Tianjin Magnesium 

International, Co. Ltd.’’ (‘‘TMI’s Analysis 

Memorandum’’), dated June 1, 2009. 

32See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the 

People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 

28, 2003), and accompanying Issue and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 19. 

33See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof 

Assembly Components Div of Ill v. United States, 

Continued 

as further developed in Notice of 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’’). 

However, if the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign-owned 

or located in a market economy, then a 

separate rate analysis is not necessary to 

determine whether it is independent 

from government control. 

Separate Rate Recipients 

TMI is the only respondent in this 

administrative review. TMI reported 

that it is a wholly Chinese–owned 

company. Therefore, the Department 

must analyze whether it can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto government control over 

export activities. 

a. 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) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.24

The evidence provided by TMI 

supports a preliminary finding of de 

jure absence of government control 

based on the following: (1) an absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with its business and export licenses; (2) 

there are applicable legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) and there are formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.25

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (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 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.26 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 evidence provided by TMI 

supports a preliminary finding of de 

facto absence of government control 

based on the following: (1) the absence 

of evidence that the export prices are set 

by or are subject to the approval of a 

government agency;27 (2) the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements;28 (3) the respondent has 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management29 and (4) the 

respondent retains the proceeds of its 

export sales and makes independent 

decisions regarding disposition of 

profits or financing of losses.30

Therefore, the evidence placed on the 

record of this review by TMI 

demonstrates an absence of de jure and 

de facto government control with 

respect to TMI’s exports of the 

merchandise under review, in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 

Accordingly, we have determined that 

TMI has demonstrated its eligibility for 

a separate rate. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of pure 

magnesium to the United States by TMI 

were made at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’), we compared Export Price 

(‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, EP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) before the date of 

importation by the producer or exporter 

of the subject merchandise outside of 

the United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States, as adjusted under 

section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act, we have 

used EP for TMI’s U.S. sales because the 

subject merchandise was sold directly to 

the unaffiliated customers in the United 

States prior to importation and because 

Constructed Export Price was not 

otherwise warranted. 

We have based the EP on delivered 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we have 

made deductions from the starting price 

for movement expenses, including 

expenses for foreign inland freight from 

the plant to the port of exportation, 

domestic brokerage and handling, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

brokerage and handling expenses 

incurred in the U.S. and the U.S. 

customs duty. No other adjustments to 

EP were reported or claimed.31

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that, the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if the the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country and the Department finds 

available 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. When determining NV in an 

NME context, the Department will base 

NV on FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of these economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under our 

normal methodologies. The 

Department’s questionnaire requires 

that TMI provide information regarding 

the weighted–average FOPs across all of 

the company’s plants that produce the 

subject merchandise, not just the FOPs 

from a single plant. This methodology 

ensures that the Department’s 

calculations are as accurate as 

possible.32

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to find an appropriate SV to 

value FOPs, but when a producer 

sources an input from a market 

economy and pays for it in market– 

economy currency, the Department may 

value the factor using the actual price 

paid for the input.33 TMI reported that 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27094 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

268 F. 3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 

(affirming the Department’s use of market-based 

prices to value certain FOPs). 

34See TMI’s DQR at D-5. 

35 Id. at D-13. 

36See TMI 1st SDQR at Exhibit 5. 

37For further discussion of TMI’s by-product 

offsets, see TMI’s Analysis Memorandum and 

Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

38 See Factor Valuation Memorandum at 

attachment 1. 

39See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). 

40See Factor Valuation Memorandum at 

Attachment 2. 

41See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 13, 2005), 

unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the 

First Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 

21, 2006); and China National Machinery Import & 

Export Corporation v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 

2d 1334 (CIT 2003), affirmed 104 Fed. Appx. 183 

(Fed. Cir. 2004). 

42See H.R. Rep. No. 100-576 at 590 (1988). 

43See Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 2006- 

2007Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 

FR 76336 (December 16, 2008), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

44See 16th Annual Report 2007-2008, Nova Iron 

& Steel Limited, at 14 contained in TMI’s Initial 

Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit SV-2D. 

45See 101st Annual Report 2007-2008, Tata Steel 

Limited, at 183 contained in Petitioner’s 1st 

Rebuttal Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit SV1. 

it did not purchase any inputs from 

market economy suppliers for the 

production of the subject 

merchandise.34

We calculated NV based on FOPs in 

accordance with section 773(c)(3) and 

(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). 

The FOPs 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 costs. The 

Department used FOPs reported by TMI 

for materials, energy, labor, by– 

products, and packing. 

TMI stated that two by–products, i.e., 

cement clinker and waste magnesium, 

are generated from the production 

process of subject merchandise,35 and 

provided the Department with the 

receipts of sales of cement clinker and 

waste magnesium generated during the 

POR.36 Therefore, for these preliminary 

results, we have granted TMI’s 

requested by–product offsets for cement 

clinker and waste magnesium in our NV 

calculation.37

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, the Department calculated NV 

based on FOPs reported by TMI for the 

POR. To calculate NV, the Department 

multiplied the reported per–unit factor 

consumption quantities by publicly 

available Indian surrogate values. In 

selecting the surrogate values, the 

Department considered the quality, 

specificity, and contemporaneity of the 

data. The Department adjusted input 

prices by including freight costs to make 

them delivered prices, as appropriate. 

Specifically, the Department added to 

Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory of production. This adjustment 

is in accordance with the decision of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 

117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir.1997). 

A detailed description of all surrogate 

values used to value TMI’s reported 

FOPs can be found in the Factor 

Valuation Memorandum. 

The Department calculated surrogate 

values for the majority of reported FOPs 

purchased from NME sources using the 

contemporaneous, weighted–average 

unit import value derived from the 

Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade 

of India, as published by the Directorate 

General of Commercial Intelligence and 

Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce 

and Industry, Government of India in 

the World Trade Atlas, available at 

http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm (‘‘WTA 

Indian Import Statistics’’).38 WTA 

Indian Import Statistics were reported 

in rupees and are contemporaneous 

with the POR to calculate surrogate 

values for TMI’s material inputs. In 

selecting the best available information 

for valuing FOPs in accordance with 

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

Department’s practice is to select, to the 

extent practicable, surrogate values 

which are non–export average values, 

most contemporaneous with the POI, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive.39

In those instances where the 

Department could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POR with which to value FOPs, 

the Department adjusted the surrogate 

values using the Indian Wholesale Price 

Index (‘‘WPI’’), as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund.40

Furthermore, with regard to Indian 

import–based surrogate values, we have 

disregarded prices that we have reason 

to believe or suspect may be subsidized, 

such as those from Indonesia, South 

Korea, and Thailand. We have found in 

other proceedings that these countries 

maintain broadly available, non– 

industry-specific export subsidies and, 

therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all 

exports to all markets from these 

countries may be subsidized.41 We are 

also guided by the statute’s legislative 

history that explains that it is not 

necessary to conduct a formal 

investigation to ensure that such prices 

are not subsidized.42 Rather, the 

Department was instructed by Congress 

to base its decision on information that 

is available to it at the time it is making 

its determination. Therefore, we have 

not used prices from these countries in 

calculating the Indian import–based 

surrogate values. 

The Department used WTA Indian 

Import Statistics to calculate surrogate 

values for raw materials, including 

ferrosilicon, fluorite, sulphur powder 

and sulfuric acid and for packing 

materials, including steel bands and 

plastic bags. For dolomite, in reviewing 

the record evidence of this proceeding, 

we continue to find, as we did in the 

previous segments of this proceeding, 

that it is reasonable to conclude that 

WTA data represent prices of imported 

dolomite in the high–end value–added 

product range while the dolomite used 

to produce subject merchandise is the 

high–bulk, low–value commodity.43

Therefore, we have determined to value 

dolomite using the purchase price paid 

by Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. (‘‘Tata Sponge 

Iron’’), an Indian producer of sponge 

iron, as recorded in Tata Sponge Iron’s 

2007–2008 financial statements. We 

have determined not to use the purchase 

price paid by Nova Iron & Steel Limited 

(‘‘Nova Iron & Steel’’), another Indian 

producer of iron and steel, because the 

company is registered as a Sick 

Industrial Company, as recorded in 

Nova Iron & Steel’s 2007–2008 financial 

statements.44 Finally, we have 

determined not to use the purchase 

price from Tata Steel because this 

represents an average price for both 

dolomite and limestone.45

We have determined to value TMI’s 

by–product of clinker using the 

purchase price paid by Madras Cements 

Ltd. (‘‘Madras Cements’’), an Indian 

producer of cement. Our examination of 

the record evidence, including the 

description of TMI’s production 

process, leads us to preliminarily 

conclude that the by–product clinker, 

like the dolomite from which it is 

generated, is also a high–bulk, low– 

value commodity, and that WTA Indian 

Import Statistics would similarly be 

inappropriate to value this material. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27095 

46See Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries, revised in May 2008, available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages. The source of these wage-rate 

data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2006, ILO 

(Geneva: 2006), Chapter 5B: Wages in 

Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates 

are from 2004 and 2005. 47See TMI’s DQR at D-12. 

48See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in 

Granular Form from the People’s Republic of China, 

66 FR 49345 (September 27, 2001) (‘‘Granular 

Magnesium’’). 

49The 2007-2008 financial statements of Malco 

are missing schedules for ‘‘turnover’’ and ‘‘other 

income.’’ The Department does not use incomplete 

financial statements. See Frontseating Service 

Valves From the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 

10886 (March 13, 2009), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

50See Annual Report 2007-2008, Hindalco, at 94 

contained in Petitioner’s 4/16/2009 Surrogate Value 

Comments at Exhibit 8. 

51See 27th Annual Report 2007-2008, Nalco, at 

71 contained in Petitioner’s 4/16/2009 Surrogate 

Value Comments at Exhibit 9. 

52See Annual Report 2007-2008, Binani Zic, at 24 

contained in Petitioner’s 4/16/2009 Surrogate Value 

Comments at Exhibit 12. 

53See, e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings From 

India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 

61592 (November 12, 1999); unchanged in Certain 

Iron-Metal Castings From India: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review 65 FR 

31515 (May 18, 2000); see also http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

esel/eselframes.html and Notice of Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Final Negative Critical Circumstances 

Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India, 71 FR 45034 (August 8, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate.’’ 

54 See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results 

And Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2005 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 72 

Continued 

Accordingly, and to be consistent with 

the valuation of dolomite, we have 

valued this by–product using the 

purchase price paid by Madras Cements. 

We valued TMI’s by–product of waste 

magnesium using WTA Indian Import 

Statistics, in part, because, unlike the 

case for dolomite and clinker, there is 

no domestic purchase price for waste 

magnesium on the record. We will 

continue to analyze TMI’s waste 

magnesium to determine the best 

information available to use for the final 

results. 

We valued flux No.2, which consists 

of magnesium chloride, potassium 

chloride and sodium chloride, using 

data from Chemical Weekly. We 

consider both Chemical Weekly and 

WTA Indian Import Statistics reliable 

sources that the Department has used in 

past cases to value chemical component 

inputs. In the instant case, however, we 

have determined that Chemical Weekly 

is the best information available for 

valuing magnesium chloride because 

the quantity of the total imports of 

magnesium chloride in the WTA Indian 

Import Statistics is very small and thus 

does not appear to represent commercial 

quantities. 

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a simple average of the brokerage 

and handling costs that were reported in 

public submissions that were filed in 

three antidumping duty cases. 

Specifically, we averaged the public 

brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by Navneet Publications (India) 

Ltd. in the 2007–2008 administrative 

review of certain lined paper products 

from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 

2006–2007 antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot–rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India, 

and Himalya International Ltd. in the 

2005–2006 administrative review of 

certain preserved mushrooms from 

India. We inflated the brokerage and 

handling rate using the appropriate WPI 

inflator. 

For direct labor, indirect labor, and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), the Department used the 

PRC regression–based wage rate as 

reported on Import Administration’s 

website.46 Because this regression– 

based wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, the Department has 

applied the same wage rate to all skill 

levels and types of labor reported by 

TMI. If the NME wage rates are updated 

by the Department prior to issuance of 

the final determination, we will use the 

updated wage rate in the final results. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published 

by the Central Electricity Authority of 

the Government of India in its 

publication titled ‘‘Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India,’’ dated July 2006. 

These electricity rates represent actual 

country–wide, publicly–available 

information on tax–exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using an Indian per–unit average rate 

calculated from data on the following 

Web site http://www.infobanc.com/ 

logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics 

section of this Web site contains inland 

freight truck rates between many large 

Indian cities. Since this rate is not 

contemporaneous with the POR we 

deflated the rate using WPI. 

Since TMI reports using non–coking 

coal with useful heat value (‘‘UHV’’) of 

5500 kcal/kg,47 we valued steam coal 

using Teri Energy Data Directory & 

Yearbook (‘‘TERI Data’’), which 

categorizes non–coking coal into 

different grades from A to G based on 

UHV and the selling prices for 

categories B and C of non–coking coal 

reported by Coal India Ltd., which we 

retrieved from its website on May 22, 

2009. 

We valued marine insurance using the 

price quote retrieved from http:// 

www.rjgconsultants.com/163.html, a 

market–economy provider of marine 

insurance. 

Section 351.408(c)(4) of the 

Department’s regulations directs the 

Department to value overhead, general 

and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), 

and profit using non–proprietary 

information gathered from producers of 

identical or comparable merchandise in 

the surrogate country. In this 

proceeding, Petitioners and TMI placed 

the 2007–2008 financial statements on 

the record from nine Indian companies: 

Madras Aluminum Company Ltd. 

(‘‘Malco’’), Hindalco Industries Limited 

(‘‘Hindalco’’), National Aluminium 

Company Limited (‘‘Nalco’’), Hindustan 

Zinc Limited (‘‘Hindustan Zinc’’), 

Binani Zinc (‘‘Binani Zinc’’), Sudal 

Industries Ltd. (‘‘Sudal’’), Centure 

Extrusions Ltd. (‘‘Century’’), Bhoruka 

Aluminum (‘‘Bhoruka’’) and Man 

Aluminum Ltd. (‘‘Man’’). However, we 

have preliminarily determined that 

none of financial statements on the 

record is usable for various reasons, as 

explained in detail below. Therefore, as 

the best available information, we have 

used Malco’s 2006–2007 audited 

financial statements, which we used in 

the 2006–2007 administrative review.48

We have determined not to use the 

2007–2008 financial statements of 

Malco because they are incomplete.49

We have determined not to rely on the 

2007–2008 financial statements of 

Hindalco because they indicate that 

Hindalco received ‘‘Export and Other 

Incentives’’ i.e., Duty Free Import 

Entitlement Scheme (‘‘EPCG Scheme’’) 

under ‘‘Operating Revenues.’’50

Similarly, Nalco’s financial statements 

indicate that Nalco received ‘‘Export 

Incentives’’ under Duty Entitlement 

Pass Book (‘‘DEPB Premium’’) as ‘‘Other 

Income.’’51 Also, we have determined 

not to use the 2007–2008 financial 

statements of Binani Zinc because it too 

made use of the DEPB Premium.52

India’s EPCG Scheme and DEPB 

Premiums each have been found by the 

Department to provide a countervailable 

subsidy.53 Consistent with the 

Department practice, we do not use 

financial statements of a company we 

have reason to believe or suspect may 

have received subsidies, because 

financial ratios derived from that 

company’s financial statements do not 

constitute the best available information 

with which to value financial ratios.54


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27096 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

FR 19174 (April 17, 2007) (‘‘Crawfish from the 

PRC’’), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

55See Annual Report 2007-2008, Century, at 16 

contained in TMI’s 3/20/2009 Surrogate Value 

Comments at Exhibit 13B. See also 29th Annual 

Report 2007-2008, Sudal, at 29 contained in TMI’s 

3/20/2009 Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit 

13A. See also 28th Annual Report 2007-2008, 

Bhoruka, at 35 contained in TMI’s 3/20/2009 

Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit 13C. See also 

Annual Report 2007-2008, Man, at 30 contained in 

TMI’s 3/20/2009 Surrogate Value Comments at 

Exhibit 13D. 

56See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

57See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 

58See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

59See 19 CFR, 351.212(b)(c). 

Additionally, we have determined not 

to use the 2007–2008 financial 

statements of Hindustan Zinc because 

Hindustan Zinc has four captive mines, 

which indicates it is an integrated 

producer and so would not accurately 

reflect TMI’s production. Furthermore, 

we have determined not use the 2007– 

2008 financial statements of Sudal, 

Century, Bhoruka and Man because we 

find that the production of these 

companies is not comparable to TMI’s. 

Record evidence shows that these 

companies are secondary aluminum 

extrusion manufacturers that buy 

aluminum metals from primary 

producers or alternatively import metal 

and manufacture aluminum extrusions. 

In contrast, TMI’s producers are 

producers of primary pure magnesium 

that extract magnesium from dolomite 

rocks through an electrolytic process. 

Century reports that it is an important 

secondary aluminum extrusion 

manufacturer in India. Sudal, Bhoruka 

and Man utilize aluminum ingots, 

aluminum billets and/or aluminum 

scrap and aluminum alloy as raw 

materials.55 Since TMI’s producers and 

these secondary aluminum extrusion 

manufacturers start their production 

processes at different stages, we have 

determined not to include the financial 

data from these secondary aluminum 

extrusion manufacturers in our 

surrogate financial ratio calculation. 

For a complete listing of all the inputs 

and a detailed discussion about our 

surrogate value selections, see Factor 

Valuation Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

The Department made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

effect as certified by the Federal Reserve 

Bank on the dates of the U.S. sales. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

from TMI upon which we will rely in 

making our final determination. 

Weighted–Average Dumping Margins 

The preliminary weighted–average 

dumping margin is as follows: 

PURE MAGNESIUM FROM THE PRC 

Exporter 

Weighted–Average 

Margin (percentage) 

Tianjin Magnesium 

International Co. Ltd. 9.1% 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary 

results.56 If a hearing is requested, the 

Department will announce the hearing 

schedule at a later date. Interested 

parties may submit case briefs and/or 

written comments no later than seven 

days after the release of the verification 

report issued in this review.57 Rebuttal 

briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

such briefs or comments, may be filed 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing the case briefs.58 Further, 

we request that parties submitting 

written comments provide the 

Department with an additional copy of 

those comments on diskette or CD ROM. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any 

comments, and at a hearing, within 120 

days of publication of these preliminary 

results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, we calculated 

importer- or customer specific 

assessment rates for merchandise 

subject to this review.59 We calculated 

an ad valorem rate for each importer or 

customer by dividing the total dumping 

margins for reviewed sales to that party 

by the total entered values associated 

with those transactions. For duty– 

assessment rates calculated on this 

basis, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting ad valorem rate against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise. Where appropriate, we 

calculated a per–unit rate for each 

importer or customer by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total sales 

quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty–assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per–unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an 

importer- (or customer-) specific 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent) in accordance with 

the requirement of 19 CFR 351.106)c)(2), 

the Department will instruct CBP to 

assess that importer’s (or customer’s) 

entries of subject merchandise without 

regard to antidumping duties. We 

intend to instruct CBP to liquidate 

entries containing subject merchandise 

exported by the PRC–wide entity at the 

PRC–wide rate we determine in the final 

results of this review. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for shipments of 

the subject merchandise from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by 

sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for 

TMI, which has a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be that established in 

the final results of this review (except, 

if the rate is zero or de minimis, zero 

cash deposit will be required); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non–PRC exporters not listed above 

that received a separate rate in a prior 

segment of this proceeding the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 108.26 percent; 

and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporter that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27097 

1On May 11, 2007, the Department received a 

scope inquiry request from U&A Belgium regarding 

whether the scope of the orders on SSPC from 

Belgium excludes stainless steel products with an 

actual thickness less than 4.75mm, regardless of its 

nominal thickness. The Department conducted a 

scope inquiry applicable to all countries subject to 

the SSPC antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders. In the Department’s scope ruling, dated 

December 3, 2008, the Department determined that 

SSPC with a nominal thickness of 4.75mm, but with 

an actual thickness less than 4.75mm, and within 

the dimensional tolerances for this thickness of 

plate, is included in the scope of the antidumping 

duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, Italy, South 

Africa, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan and 

countervailing duty orders on SSPC from Belgium 

and South Africa. See Memorandum from Melissa 

G. Skinner to Stephen J. Claeys titled ‘‘Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Scope 

Ruling,’’ dated December 3, 2008. 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213. 

Dated: June 1, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13344 Filed 6–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–423–808] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium. 

For the period of review (POR) May 1, 

2007, through April 30, 2008, we have 

preliminarily determined that U.S. sales 

have been made below normal value 

(NV). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties based on the difference between 

the constructed export price (CEP) and 

NV. See ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy 

Zhang or George McMahon, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1168 or (202) 482– 

1167, respectively. 

Background 

On May 5, 2008, the Department 

issued a notice of opportunity to request 

an administrative review of this order 

for the POR. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 24532 (May 5, 2008). On May 30, 

2008, the Department received a timely 

request for an administrative review of 

this antidumping duty order from 

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North 

American Stainless, Butler–Armco 

Independent Union, Zanesville Armco 

Independent Union, and the United 

Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/CLC 

(collectively, Petitioners). On June 2, 

2008, the Department received a timely 

request for an administrative review 

from the respondent, Ugine & ALZ 

Belgium (U&A Belgium), respectively. 

On June 29, 2007, we published a notice 

initiating an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on SSPC 

from Belgium covering one respondent, 

U&A Belgium. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Request for 

Revocation in Part and Deferral of 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 35690 

(June 29, 2007). 

In the prior administrative review of 

this antidumping duty order, U&A 

Belgium reported that it is wholly 

owned by Arcelor S.A. and stated that 

Arcelor S.A. was in the process of 

merging with Mittal Steel, N.V. (Mittal) 

to form Arcelor Mittal S.A. See Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

32298 (June 6, 2008). In the instant 

review, U&A Belgium stated ‘‘{t}he 

merger between AMS Belgium’s former 

parent Arcelor S.A. and Mittal Steel 

N.V. was completed on November 13, 

2007. Although this is midway through 

the review period, AMS Belgium has 

prepared its responses to the 

Department’s questionnaires as if 

ArcelorMittal were fully consolidated 

for the entire reporting period.’’ See 

U&A Belgium’s Section A questionnaire 

response, dated September 18, 2008, at 

page 6, footnote 1. Due to the 

completion of the aforementioned 

merger and based on U&A Belgium’s 

reporting of a consolidated 

questionnaire response, we have 

conducted a successor–in-interest 

analysis. Based upon our findings, we 

have changed our reference to this 

company from U&A Belgium to 

ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium (AMS 

Belgium) hereafter. See the 

Department’s memo to the File titled, 

‘‘Successor–in-Interest analysis for AMS 

Belgium,’’ dated June 1, 2009 on file in 

the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 

1117 of the main Department building. 

On July 15, 2008, the Department 

issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire to AMS Belgium. We 

received AMS Belgium’s response to 

Section A of the Department’s 

questionnaire on September 18, 2008, 

and Sections B–D on October 3, 2008. 

On December 8, 2008, the Department 

received comments from the Petitioners 

on the Sections A through C responses 

for AMS Belgium. After reviewing the 

Sections A through D responses from 

AMS Belgium, the Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to AMS 

Belgium. The Department issued 

additional supplemental questions, after 

reviewing AMS Belgium’s supplemental 

questionnaire responses. On January 21, 

2009, the Department issued an 

extension of the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this antidumping 

duty administrative review from January 

31, 2009, until June 1, 2009. See 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 3563 

(January 21, 2009). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

certain stainless steel plate in coils. 

Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject plate products are 

flat–rolled products, 254 mm or over in 

width and 4.75 mm1 or more in 

thickness, in coils, and annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled. The subject plate 

may also be further processed (e.g., 

cold–rolled, polished, etc.) provided 

that it maintains the specified 

dimensions of plate following such 

processing. Excluded from the scope of 

this order are the following: (1) Plate not 

in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES