Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2004-10-04 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Correction to final results of antidumping duty administrative review

22,613 words·~103 min read·/register/2004/10/04/04-22175·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-357-812] Honey From Argentina: Corrected Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Correction to final results of antidumping duty administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian J. Sheba or Robert M. James, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations Office Seven, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-0145 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. Background On May 27, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its notice of final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of honey from Argentina for the period May 11, 2001 through November 30, 2002. *See Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004). Subsequent to the final results, the Department has discovered a typographical error in its “all others” cash deposit rate. The Department mistakenly used the “all others” rate in the investigation final determination, rather than the corrected “all others” rate published in the antidumping duty order. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina,* 66 FR 50611 (Oct. 4, 2001), *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina,* 66 FR 58434 (Nov. 21, 2001), and *Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina,* 66 FR 63672 (Dec. 10, 2001). We now correct the final results of the 2001-2002 antidumping duty administrative review of honey from Argentina as noted above. As a result of this correction, the “all others” cash deposit rate is 30.24 percent *ad valorem.* These amended final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: September 28, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2477 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-896] Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of the Final Determination: Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian or Laurel LaCivita, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6412 or 482-4243. Preliminary Determination We preliminarily determine that magnesium metal 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Case History On February 27, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received a petition on imports of magnesium metal from the PRC, filed in proper form by the U.S. Magnesium Corporation LLC, United Steelworkers of America, Local 8319, and Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers International, Local 374 (collectively, “Petitioners”) on behalf of the domestic industry and workers producing magnesium metal. *See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China,* dated February 27, 2004 (“the Petition”). This investigation was initiated on March 25, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 15293 (March 25, 2004) (“ *Notice of Initiation* ”). On April 16, 2004, and April 26, 2004, the Department requested quantity and value (“Q&V”) information from a total of one hundred and forty-two producers of magnesium metal in the PRC which were identified in the petition and for which the Department was able to locate contact information. On April 16, 2004, the Department also sent the Government of the PRC a letter requesting assistance in locating all known Chinese producers/exporters of magnesium metal who exported magnesium metal to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. On April 26, 2004, the Department received Q&V responses from two Chinese producers/exporters of magnesium metal, the RSM companies (“RSM”) and Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin”). The Government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's April 16, 2004, letter requesting assistance in identifying producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC. On April 30, 2004, the Department determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Morocco, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy to Robert Bolling, Program Manager, Group III, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,* dated April 30, 2004 (“ *Office of Policy Surrogate Countries Memorandum* ”). On May 6, 2004, we issued Sections A, C, D, and E of our questionnaire to Tianjin and RSM, the only two companies that responded to our request for Q&V information. In addition, on May 6, 2004, we issued a Section A, C, D, and E questionnaire to the Government of the PRC through the Ministry of Commerce and the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC. On May 17, 2004, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from China and Russia of pure magnesium and magnesium alloy. The ITC's determination was published in the **Federal Register** on May 21, 2004. *See Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1071-1072 (Preliminary), Magnesium from China and Russia,* 69 FR 29329 (May 21, 2004). On May 19, 2004, the Department issued its respondent selection memorandum, officially selecting RSM and Tianjin as the two mandatory respondents in this investigation. *See Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst, Office IX, to Edward Yang, Office Director, Office IX, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China,* dated May 19, 2004 (“Respondent Selection Memorandum”). On May 10, 2004, the Department requested that the parties submit comments on surrogate country selection. On May 24, 2004, we received comments regarding our selection of a surrogate country from the Petitioners. On June 2, 2004, we received comments regarding our selection of a surrogate country from RSM and Tianjin. Petitioners argued that India is the appropriate surrogate country for this investigation because India is at a comparable level of economic development with the PRC based on gross national income (“GNI”) and contains the only producer of primary magnesium located in any of the countries identified by the Department as surrogate countries. RSM and Tianjin provided information identifying Kazakhstan, Russia, and Brazil as potential surrogate countries in this investigation and contended that, according to the World Bank, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Brazil each have a per-capita GNI comparable to that of the PRC. RSM and Tianjin stated further that, according to the World Bank, neither India nor any of the other countries named in the *Office of Policy Surrogate Countries Memorandum* is at a stage of economic development comparable to the PRC. We received rebuttal comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country from Petitioners and respondents on June 14, 2004, June 28, 2004, and July 9, 2004. We provided a one-week extension until June 1, 2004 to all interested parties that requested an extension for submitting a response to our Section A questionnaire. Additionally, we provided an extension until June 16, 2004, to all mandatory respondents to respond to sections C, D, and E of the questionnaire. For a detailed discussion on specific mandatory respondent extensions, please see the company-specific section for each mandatory respondent below. On June 3, 2004, we received a Section A questionnaire response from Beijing Guangling Jinghua Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (“Guangling”), which requested a separate rate. On June 2, 2004, and June 4, 2004, we received a request from Petitioners, RSM, and Tianjin, respectively, to extend the deadline for supplying surrogate-value information until two weeks after the submission of Section D data. On July 6, 2004, we extended the time period for interested parties to provide surrogate values for factors of production until July 12, 2004. On July 8, 2004, RSM and Tianjin requested an extension until two weeks after the Department decided the surrogate country to submit their surrogate-value information. On June 17, 2004, RSM requested that the Department excuse it from reporting certain U.S. further-manufacturing activities. On June 21, 2004, we informed RSM that we did not have sufficient information on the record to exempt it from reporting sales and cost for merchandise further manufactured in the United States and requested RSM to report the further-manufactured downstream sales of its affiliate by June 28, 2004. On June 22, 2004, RSM requested additional guidance concerning the information the Department required it to provide in order to grant RSM an exemption from responding to the Section E questionnaire (for a detailed discussion of this issue, please see the RSM company-specific section below). On June 28, 2004, Petitioners made a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a fifty-day postponement of the preliminary determination or until September 24, 2004. On July 21, 2004, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary antidumping duty determination on magnesium metal from the PRC. *See Notice of Postponement of the Preliminary Determinations in Antidumping Duty Investigations of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation* 69 FR 43561 (July 21, 2004). On August 3, 2004, the Department determined that India was the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation. *See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, from Laurel LaCivita and Lilit Astvatsatrian, Case Analysts, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China,* dated August 3, 2004 (“ *Surrogate-Country Selection Memorandum* ”). We received comments regarding our selection of India as the surrogate country from interested parties (for a detailed discussion of the comments regarding the surrogate country, please see the “Surrogate Country” section below). On August 3, 2004, we informed Petitioners, RSM, and Tianjin that the due date for submitting surrogate-value information was August 10, 2004. On August 6, 2004, RSM and Tianjin requested that the Department extend the deadline for submitting surrogate-value information until September 1, 2004. On August 9, 2004, we extended the deadline for submitting surrogate-value information until August 17, 2004. We then extended the deadline for submitting surrogate-value information until August 19, 2004. On August 19, 2004, Petitioners, RSM and Tianjin submitted surrogate-value comments. Petitioners filed rebuttal comments concerning RSM and Tianjin Magnesium's August 19, 2004, submission on August 30, 2004. RSM and Tianjin submitted additional, unsolicited surrogate-value information on September 10, 2004, and September 13, 2004. On September 10, 2004, and September 14, 2004, Petitioners objected to RSM's and Tianjin's September 10, 2004, and September 13, 2004, submissions of surrogate-value information, and requested that the Department withdraw them from the record. On September 16, 2004, we responded that we would not use RSM's and Tianjin's surrogate-value submissions of September 10, 2004, and September 13, 2004, for the preliminary determination of this investigation, but would consider the information for the final determination. *See Memorandum to The File from Laurel LaCivita Senior Case Analyst, Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Untimely Submissions of Surrogate Value Information,* dated September 16, 2004. Company-Specific Chronology As described above, the Department staggered its issuance of sections of the antidumping questionnaire to the mandatory respondents. Upon receipt of the various responses, the Petitioners provided comments and the Department issued supplemental questionnaires. The chronology of this stage of the investigation varies by respondent. Therefore, the Department has separated by company the following discussion of its information-gathering process after issuance of the questionnaire. RSM RSM submitted its Section A questionnaire response on June 4, 2004. On June 17, 2004, RSM requested that the Department excuse it from reporting certain further-manufacturing activities in the United States, arguing that the value added in the United States “exceeds substantially” the value of the imported subject merchandise and that there were sufficient sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers upon which to conduct a constructed-export-price (“CEP”) analysis. On June 21, 2004, the Department responded that it did not have sufficient information to exempt RSM from reporting its sales of further-manufactured merchandise in the United States. On June 22, 2004, RSM requested further guidance concerning the types of information that the Department needed to grant its request. Petitioners submitted comments concerning RSM's June 22, 2004, request on June 23, 2004, claiming that RSM did not explain fully its affiliations with Toyota Tsusho America, Inc. (“TAI”), its affiliated reseller in the United States, and its further-manufacturer in the United States. Petitioners claimed further that RSM applied an incorrect methodology to determine the value added in the United States. On June 25, 2004, RSM responded that it need only address the value-added arguments in Petitioners' June 23, 2004, submission. RSM submitted its Section C and D questionnaire responses on June 21, 2004. On June 25, 2004, Petitioners submitted comments on RSM's Section A response. RSM submitted its Section E questionnaire response on June 29, 2004. Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on RSM's Section C and D questionnaire responses on July 2, 2004, and on RSM's Section E questionnaire response on July 13, 2004. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire concerning Sections A-E of RSM's questionnaire responses on July 23, 2004. RSM submitted a supplemental section A through E questionnaire response on August 20, 2004. The Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire covering RSM on September 2, 2004. RSM provided its second supplemental questionnaire response on September 15, 2004. On September 21, 2004, the Department provided a memorandum to the file explaining that, although it was not rejecting RSM's September 15, 2004, submission, it would not be able to use the information provided in its second supplemental questionnaire response for the preliminary determination. *See Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst, to the File, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: The Use of RSM's September 14, 2004 Second Supplemental Section A, C & D Questionnaire Response for the Preliminary Determination* , dated September 20, 2004. Tianjin On June 4, 2004, Tianjin submitted its Section A questionnaire response. On June 18, 2004, Tianjin submitted its response to Section C of the Department's May 6, 2004, questionnaire. On June 21, 2004, Tianjin submitted its response to Section D of the Department's questionnaire. On July 2, 2004, Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on Tianjin's responses to Sections A, C, and D of the questionnaire. On July 23, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental Sections A, C, and D questionnaire. On August 13, 2004, Tianjin submitted its response to the supplemental Sections A, C, and D questionnaire. On August 23, 2004, the Department issued a second supplemental Sections A, C, and D questionnaire. On September 2, 2004, Tianjin submitted its response to the second supplemental Sections A, C, and D questionnaire. On September 3, 2004, Tianjin provided corrected versions of certain exhibits included in its September 2, 2004, submission. On September 13, 2004, Tianjin submitted electronic copies of its supplemental Sections A-D questionnaire responses. Guangling Jinghua Guangling Jinghua submitted its Section A response on June 3, 2004. Petitioners provided comments on Guangling Jinghua's Section A response on July 8, 2004. The Department issued a supplemental Section A questionnaire on August 12, 2004. Guangling provided its supplemental Section A response on August 26, 2004. Postponement of Final Determination Section 735(a) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until no 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 Petitioners. 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 an extension of the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. On September 14, 2004, RSM requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days until 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination. Accordingly, because we have made an affirmative preliminary determination and the requesting parties account for a significant proportion of the exports of the subject merchandise, we have postponed the final determination until no later than 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination and are extending the provisional measures accordingly. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (February 27, 2003). *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation The products covered by this investigation are primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this investigation includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium. The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes: products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 1 and thus are outside the scope of the existing antidumping orders on magnesium from the PRC (generally referred to as “alloy” magnesium). 1 The 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* . The scope of this investigation excludes the following merchandise:
(1)All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less that 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 2 ;
(2)magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and
(3)mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form, by weight, and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite. 3 2 This material is already covered by existing antidumping orders. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; 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); *Antidumping Duty Order: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 57936 (Nov. 19, 2001). 3 This third exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000-2001 investigations of magnesium from the PRC, Israel, and Russia. *See 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); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel* , 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); *Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation* , 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys because they are not chemically combined in liquid form and cast into the same ingot. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under items 8104.19.00 and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Selection of Respondents Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, this provision permits the Department to investigate either
(1)a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available to the Department at the time of selection or
(2)exporters/producers accounting for the largest volume of the merchandise under investigation that can reasonably be examined. Only two of the twenty-four exporters identified in the petition responded to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determined that it has the resources available to investigate all responding parties in this investigation and that there is no reason to limit the number of respondents to be examined in this investigation pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. *See Respondent Selection Memorandum* at 3. Consequently, in this investigation, we have examined both Tianjin and RSM, the only two exporters of subject merchandise who responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. The two Chinese producers/exporters (Tianjin and RSM) accounted for a significant percentage of all exports of the subject merchandise from the PRC during the POI and were selected as mandatory respondents. *See Respondent Selection Memorandum* at 3. Non-Market-Economy Country For purposes of initiation, the Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as a non-market economy. *See Notice of Initiation* at 15295. In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an Non-Market-Economy (“NME”) country. 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. *See also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review,* 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (“NV”), in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under the NV section below. The Department determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Morocco, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See Office of Policy Surrogate Countries Memorandum.* Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries. The Department received arguments from interested parties on the surrogate country. Petitioners argue that India is the appropriate surrogate country for this investigation because India is at a comparable level of economic development with the PRC based on gross national income (“GNI”). Petitioners contend that the Department has consistently found that India meets these statutory requirements for a surrogate country for the PRC, citing *Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium* at 55425 and 55426 and *Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative Review,* 62 FR 55215, 55217 (October 23, 1997). Petitioners argue that India is a significant producer of aluminum, which the Department has determined previously to be the product most comparable product to magnesium, citing *Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From the People's Republic Of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative Review,* 63 FR 3085, 3087 (January 21, 1998) (“Pure Magnesium New Shipper Review”). Respondents identified Kazakhstan, Russia, and Brazil as potential surrogate countries for the PRC in this investigation. Respondents argue that neither India nor the other countries identified in the Office of Policy's List of Surrogate Countries produce the subject merchandise nor comparable merchandise. Respondents claim further that, among the developing countries other than China, only Kazakhstan, Russia, and Brazil are significant producers and exporters of magnesium and magnesium alloys. *See* the *Selection of a Surrogate Country Memorandum* dated August 3, 2004, for a complete description of the interested parties surrogate-country arguments. The Department found that none of the countries on the List of Surrogate Countries are significant producers of the subject merchandise, magnesium metal. In past cases, the Department has determined that aluminum is comparable merchandise to magnesium. *See Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium* at 55425 and 55426 and *Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative Review,* 62 FR 55215, 55217 (October 23, 1997). The Department also adopted this decision in *Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative Review,* 63 FR 3085, 3088 (January 21, 1998). In *Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium,* the Department explained that, “{a}lthough the material inputs used to produce magnesium and aluminum are different, according to both U.S. Bureau of Mines and Department of Commerce experts, both
(1)are light metals in terms of molecular weight;
(2)are electricity-intensive products;
(3)are produced using an electrolytic process, and
(4)share some common end uses ( *e.g.* , die casting).” Similarly, in the 1998 new shipper review of *Pure Magnesium* we determined that aluminum constituted comparable merchandise in the context of surrogate selection for magnesium for the reasons specified in *Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium, supra.* Consequently, we have made the following determination about the use of India as a surrogate country:
(1)It is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, aluminum;
(2)it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 733(c)(4) of the Act; and
(3)we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. *See Selection of a Surrogate Country Memorandum.* Thus, we have calculated NV using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value the factors of production of the magnesium metal producers. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. *See Memorandum to the File from Laurel LaCivita, Lilit Astvatsatrian and Steven Winkates, Case Analysts, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, and Laurie Parkhill, Office Director: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Factors Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination,* dated September 24, 2004 (“Factor-Valuation Memorandum”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Affiliation Section 771(33) of the Act states that the Department considers the following entities to be affiliated:
(A)Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants;
(B)Any officer or director of an organization and such organization;
(C)Partners;
(D)Employer and employee;
(E)Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization;
(F)Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, any person; and
(G)Any person who controls any other person and such other person. For purposes of affiliation, section 771(33) of the Act states that a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. In order to find affiliation between companies, the Department must find that at least one of the criteria listed above is applicable to the respondents. The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“SAA”), H.R. Doc. 103-316 (1994), indicates that stock ownership is not the only evidentiary factor that the Department may consider to exercise restraint or direction to determine whether a person is in a position to control and that control may be established through corporate or family groupings. *See SAA* at 838. Thus, the statute and the *SAA* expressly envision affiliation based on family shareholdings, consistent with our practice. *See e.g., Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 61 FR 42833, 42853 (August 19, 1996), and *Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 62 FR 53808, 53810 (October 16, 1997). Moreover, as stated in its final regulations, the Department examines issues of affiliation by family groupings closely. *See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping duty Administrative Review,* 62 FR 53808, 53810 (October 16, 1997). To the extent that the affiliation provisions in section 771(33) of the Act do not conflict with the Department's application of separate rates and the statutory NME provisions in section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will determine that exporters and/or producers are affiliated if the facts of the case support such a finding. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 5, 2004) (“Mushrooms”). Following these guidelines, we have considered whether we should determine that the seven members of the RSM Group (“RSM”): Nanjing Yunhai Special Metals Co., Ltd. (“Yunhai Special”), Nanjing Welbow Metals Co., Ltd. (“Welbow”), Nanjing Yunhai Magnesium Co., Ltd. (“Yunhai Magnesium”), Shanxi Wenxi Yunhai Metals Co., Ltd. (“Wenxi Yunhai”), Shanxi Wenxi Bada Magnesium Co., Ltd. (“Bada Magnesium”), Yuncheng Wenxi Welfare Magnesium Plant (“Welfare Magnesium”), and Nanjing Yunhai Metals Plant (“Yunhai Metals”) are affiliated and should be collapsed. Moreover, we considered whether these companies should be collapsed with China National Nonferrous Metals I/E Corp., Jiangsu Branch (“Jiangsu Metals”), and TAI, thus considering these companies as a single entity for the purposes of the antidumping investigation of magnesium metal from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 8, NME/China Group, Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, From Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Affiliation and Collapsing of Members of the RSM Group and Its Affiliated U.S. Reseller, Toyota Tsusho America, Inc.,* dated September 24, 2004 (“Collapsing Memorandum”). In its original questionnaire responses, RSM also reported that its affiliated reseller in the United States made sales of subject merchandise to an affiliated further-manufacturer in the United States that incorporated the subject merchandise into steering wheel armatures. In its supplemental questionnaire response, RSM argued that TAI was not affiliated with its downstream further-manufacturer. Therefore, we considered whether TAI and its downstream further-manufacturer are affiliated for the purposes of this investigation. *See* the proprietary *Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 8, NME/China Group, Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, From Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Affiliation and Collapsing of Members of the RSM Group and Its Affiliated U.S. Reseller, Toyota Tsusho America, Inc.,* dated September 24, 2004 (“Affiliation Memorandum”). RSM reported that the members of RSM Group that produced or exported the subject merchandise are Yunhai Special, Welbow, Yunhai Magnesium, Wenxi Yunhai, Bada Magnesium, Welfare Magnesium, and Yunhai Metals. In addition, in its original questionnaire response, RSM claimed that it was affiliated with its U.S. reseller, TAI, during the POI and that all of the U.S. sales made through TAI should be treated as CEP sales. In its supplemental response, however, RSM argued that TAI was affiliated with only one member of the RSM group, Yunhai Magnesium, through TAI's parent company. Consequently, RSM reclassified all of its U.S. sales, except those originating with Yunhai Magnesium, as export-price (“EP”) sales. Based on our examination of the evidence presented in RSM's questionnaire responses, we have determined that Yunhai Special, Wenxi Yunhai, Welbow, Yunhai Magnesium, Bada Magnesium, Welfare Magnesium, and Yunhai Metals are affiliated under sections 771(33)(B), (E), (F), and
(G)of the Act. We found, however, that only Yunhai Special, Welbow, Yunhai Magnesium, and Wenxi Yunhai either produced the subject merchandise during the POI, or were capable of producing the subject merchandise. Thus, we determined that Yunhai Special, Welbow, Wenxi Yunhai, and Yunhai Magnesium are affiliated and should be collapsed and treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating a dumping margin in this investigation for the following reasons:
(1)Yunhai Special controls a majority or near-majority of Welbow, Wenxi Yunhai, and Yunhai Magnesium based on stock-ownership;
(2)Yunhai Special, Welbow, Wenxi Yunhai, and Yunhai Magnesium share the same general manager and a common board member; and
(3)RSM reported that the operations of Yunhai Special and Welbow cannot be distinguished since the two companies share the same general manager, production facilities, and employees. We also determined that Jiangsu Metals is affiliated with the RSM Group, under sections 771(33)(E) and
(F)of the Act, because RSM reported that Jiangsu Metals, an exporter of the subject merchandise, held more than 5 percent of the outstanding stock in Yunhai Magnesium and is therefore affiliated with Yunhai Magnesium pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act. In addition, we found that Jiangsu Metals and Yunhai Special both own shares of Yunhai Magnesium as joint-venture partners. Consequently, we determined that Jiangsu Metals and Yunhai Special are affiliated in accord with section 771(33)(F) of the Act. We determined further that, in contrast to RSM's arguments in its supplemental questionnaire response, TAI is also affiliated with the RSM Group under sections 771(33)(E) and
(F)of the Act because the role that TAI and its parent corporation play in RSM's sales process indicates that TAI is legally and operationally in a position to exercise control over the RSM Group in accordance with section 771(33)(F) of the Act. We did not analyze whether Jiangsu Metals, an affiliated exporter, meets the criteria for collapsing with the RSM group because the company did not produce the subject merchandise during the POI. As a result, we have not collapsed Jiangsu Metals with the members of the RSM group for the purposes of calculating the antidumping duty margin. We have considered Jiangsu Metals for a separate rate in its own right. We examined the information on the record with respect to TAI and its further-manufacturer and determined that TAI was affiliated with its downstream further-manufacturer, under section 771(33)(E) and
(F)of the Act, for several reasons. RSM reported that TAI and its further-manufacturer are both subsidiaries of the same parent corporation in Japan and, thus, are affiliated in accord with section 771(33)(E) of the Act. *See* the proprietary discussion of this issue in the *Affiliation Memorandum* at 3. RSM demonstrated further that the parent corporation's ownership share held a very substantial stock ownership share in both TAI and its further-manufacturer, and is therefore in a position to exercise control over both entities. Because we determined that TAI and its further-manufacturer are affiliated under sections 771(33)(E) and
(F)of the Act, we have not used the sales of subject merchandise from TAI to its affiliated further-manufacturer in our margin analysis because such sales do not represent the sales to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. *See Affiliation Memorandum.* We did not examine the downstream sales of the subject merchandise made by the affiliated further-manufacturer because we determined that the subject merchandise sold to the further-manufacturer was incorporated into products whose value exceeded substantially the value of the imported subject merchandise. *See Memorandum to the File, through Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 8, NME/China Unit, and Robert Bolling, Program Manager, From Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst, Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: The Use of RSM's Sales of Further-Manufactured Merchandise in the U.S. Market for the Preliminary Determination,* dated September 24, 2004. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation 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. The two mandatory respondents and the Section A respondent have provided company-specific information and each has stated that it meet the standards for the assignment of a separate rate. We have considered whether each company based in the PRC is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the exporters are independent from government control does not consider, in general, 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 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,* 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and *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 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by *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* ”). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. 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)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers,* 56 FR at 20589. Our analysis shows that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of *de jure* absence of governmental control for Tianjin, Guangling Jinghua, Jiangsu Metals, and the RSM companies consisting of Yunhai Special, Welbow, Wenxi Yunhai, and Yunhai Magnesium based on the criteria listed above. *See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, China/NME Group, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, from Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst and Lilit Astvatsatrian, Case Analyst, Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates Memorandum* (“ *Separate-Rates Memorandum* ”), dated September 24, 2004. 2. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers the following 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 are subject to the approval of a governmental 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. *See Silicon Carbide,* 59 FR at 22586-87; *see also 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). 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. We determine that, for Tianjin, Guangling Jinghua, Jiangsu Metals, and the RSM companies consisting of Yunhai Special, Welbow, Wenxi Yunhai, and Yunhai Magnesium, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of *de facto* absence of governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following:
(1)Each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4)each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Tianjin, Guangling Jinghua, Jiangsu Metals, and the RSM companies consisting of Yunhai Special, Welbow, Wenxi Yunhai, and Yunhai Magnesium demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under investigation in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide.* As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted separate, company-specific rates to the mandatory respondents and the Section A respondent which shipped magnesium metal to the United States during the POI. For a full discussion of this issue, please *see* the *Separate-Rates Memorandum.* PRC-Wide Rate The Department has data that indicates there were more exporters of magnesium metal from the PRC during the POI than those which responded to the Q&V questionnaire. *See Respondent Selection Memorandum* at 1. Although we issued the Q&V questionnaire to 142 known Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise, we received only two Q&V questionnaire responses, which were from the two mandatory respondents. Also, on May 6, 2004, we issued our complete questionnaire to the Chinese Government ( *i.e.* , Ministry of Commerce). Although all exporters were given an opportunity to provide information showing they qualify for separate rates, not all of these other exporters provided a response to either the Department's Q&V questionnaire or its Section A questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determines preliminarily that there were exports of the merchandise under investigation from PRC producers/exporters that did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. We treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the countrywide entity. Further, the Government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met:
(1)The information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Information on the record of this investigation indicates that there are numerous producers/exporters of magnesium metal in the PRC. As described above, all exporters were given the opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Based upon our knowledge of the volume of imports of subject merchandise from the PRC and the fact that information indicates that the responding companies did not account for all imports into the United States from the PRC, we have preliminarily determined that certain PRC exporters of magnesium metal failed to respond to our questionnaires. As a result, use of adverse facts available (“AFA”) pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act is appropriate. Additionally, in this case, the Government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, thereby necessitating the use of AFA to determine the PRC-wide rate. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003). Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may employ adverse inferences if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *See 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 (February 4, 2000). *See also* “Statement of Administrative Action” accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870
(1994)(“SAA”). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate. Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use AFA information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. As AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity a margin based on a calculated margin derived from information obtained in the course of the investigation and placed on the record of this proceeding. In this case, we have applied a rate of 177.62 percent. Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide rate—to producers/exporters that failed to respond to the Q&V questionnaire or Section A questionnaire. This rate will also apply to exporters which did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries from the two mandatory respondents and the Section A respondent. Because this is a preliminary margin, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final PRC-wide margin. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 79049, 79054 (December 27, 2002). Margin for Section A Respondent Guangling Jinghua, the only exporter which submitted a response to Section A of the Department's antidumping questionnaire and had sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI but was not selected as mandatory respondent in this investigation (“Section A respondent”), has applied for a separate rate and provided information for the Department to consider for this purpose. Therefore, we have established a weighted-average margin based on the rate we have calculated for the two mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, *de minimis* , or based entirely on adverse facts available. That rate is 140.09 percent. Guangling Jinghua is identified by name in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Date of Sale Section 351.401(I) of the Department's regulations state that, “in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business.” After examining the sales documentation placed on the record by the mandatory respondents, we preliminarily determine that date of purchase order is the most appropriate date of sale for RSM and Tianjin. In their submissions, RSM and Tianjin stated that they establish the date of sale on their purchase order date because all of their sales terms are finalized by the purchase order date. Additionally, RSM and Tianjin provided no evidence to suggest that their sales terms changed after the purchase order was established. Based on record evidence, we have determined that RSM's and Tianjin's sales terms did not change after the purchase-order date, and thus we have used purchase order date as the date of sale for the preliminary determination for RSM and Tianjin. The Department intends to examine the date-of-sale issue at verification thoroughly and may reconsider its position for the final determination based on the results of verification. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of magnesium metal to the United States by the two mandatory respondents were made at less than fair value, we compared EP or CEP to NV, as described in the “Export Price,” “U.S. Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. U.S. Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Tianjin, as appropriate, because the subject merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States and because the use of CEP was not otherwise indicated. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for RSM and Jiangsu Metals because the subject merchandise was sold in the United States after the date of importation by a U.S. reseller affiliated with the producer. In addition, we did not use sales made by the U.S. reseller to an affiliated further-manufacturer because RSM reported that all of those sales were destined for further manufacturing in the United States where the value added substantially exceeded the value of the merchandise imported. *See Memorandum to The File, Through Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 8, NME/China Unit, and Robert Bolling, Program Manager, From Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst, Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: The Use of RSM's Sales of Further-Manufactured Merchandise in the U.S. Market for the Preliminary Determination* , dated September 24, 2004. We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses ( *e.g.* , foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage, and inland freight from warehouse to unaffiliated U.S. customer) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For a detailed description of all adjustments, *see Memorandum to The File Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/NME Group, from Lilit Astvatsatrian, Case Analyst, Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin”), dated September 24, 2004, and Memorandum to the File Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/NME Group, From Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst, Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: the RSM Companies* , dated September 24, 2004. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the *SAA* at 823-824, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, for which RSM includes U.S. customs duty. We compared NV to weighted-average EPs and CEPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. For RSM, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we deducted CEP profit. For a detailed description of all adjustments, *see* the Company-Specific Analysis Memoranda dated September 24, 2004. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the factors of production because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. The Department's questionnaire requires that the respondent provide information regarding the weighted-average factors of production across all of the company's plants that produce the subject merchandise, not just the factors of production from a single plant. This methodology ensures that the Department's calculations are as accurate as possible. *See 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 (Oct. 28, 2003); Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comment 19 (Oct. 20, 2003). Therefore, for Tianjin, the Department calculated the factors of production using the weighted-average factor values for all of the facilities involved in producing the subject merchandise. For RSM and Jiangsu Metals, the Department used the weighted-average factor values reported for the RSM group members which it determined were affiliated and which it collapsed. *See* the *Collapsing Memorandum* . Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on factors of production reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as discussed below). 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. Specifically, we 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 where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp* . v. *United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For this preliminary determination, in accordance with past practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' material inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing factors of production 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. The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics represents import data, is contemporaneous with the POI, is product-specific, and is tax-exclusive. *See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 63 FR 12441, 12442 (March 13, 1998). Additionally, there is no record evidence which indicates that any of the factors being valued are of low value compared to other items in the basket categories; thus, our use of these statistics does not result in a distortion in favor of higher values. Further, the Indian Import Statistics contain values at both ends of the spectrum ( *i.e.* , high value and low value), indicating further that the Indian Import values are not distorted when taken as an average, as we are doing in this case. Therefore, we determined that the Indian Import Statistics provide the best available information for valuing the factors of production. Consequently, we valued raw material inputs for each mandatory respondent using the weighted-average unit import values derived from the World Trade Atlas® online (“Indian Import Statistics”), published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India, which were reported in rupees and are contemporaneous with POI. *See Factor-Valuation Memorandum* . Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) or the Indian Producer Price Index (“PPI”) as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund. Furthermore, with regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate values and the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. 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 are subsidized. *See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002). We are also directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. *See* H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. We used the Indian Import Statistics to value the following raw material inputs, energy, by-products, and packing materials that RSM and Tianjin used to produce the subject merchandise during the POI: Ferrosilicon, dolomite, No.2 flux, fluorite powder, sulfur powder, primary magnesium, magnesium scrap, zinc, AlBe5, AlBe1, manganese powder, magnesium, aluminum-magnesium alloy, sulfuric acid manganese chip, magnesium chloride, potassium chloride, barium chloride, aluminum, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen, argon, coal, bituminous coal, anthracite, liquified petroleum gas (“LPG”), propane, steel strap, LDPE sheet, printing ink, printing ink solvent, particle board, pallet, little steel sheet, steel band, and plastic bags. For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents, *see Factor-Valuation Memorandum* . To value electricity, we used data from the International Energy Agency (“IEA”) *Key World Energy Statistics* (2003 edition), submitted by the Petitioners in Exhibit 5 of their August 19, 2004, submission. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. *See Factor-Valuation Memorandum* . To value heavy oil and diesel fuel, we used data from IEA's *Key World Energy Statistics* (2003 edition) which was submitted by Petitioners in their August 19, 2004, submission. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. *See Factor-Valuation Memorandum* . For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003, *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/01wages/01wages.html.* The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. The respondents also reported packing inputs. We used Indian Import Statistics data from the period July 2003 to December 2003 to value these inputs. *See Factor-Valuation Memorandum.* RSM reported magnesium alloy slag as by-product of the production process. We used Indian Import Statistics data from the period July 2003 to December 2003 to value this by-product. *See Factor-Valuation Memorandum.* We used Indian transport information in order to value the transportation of raw materials. To calculate domestic inland freight for trucking services, we selected freight values from *Chemical Weekly.* Some inputs were transported by market-economy transportation firms and paid for in a market-economy currency. Where this was the case, we added the actual market-economy transportation expense to the valuation of the factor of production. We used Indian rail freight information in order to value the transportation of raw materials. To value the rail freight, we used two price quotes from November 1999 for steel shipments within India. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. *See Factor-Valuation Memorandum.* To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, from the following aluminum producers in India: National Aluminium Company Limited; Indian Aluminium Company; Limited, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited; the Madras Aluminium Company Limited; and HINDALCO Industries Limited. *See Factor-Valuation Memorandum* for a full discussion of the calculation of these ratios from these financial statements. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Verification As provided in section 782(I)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information upon which we will rely in making our final determination. Preliminary Determination The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Magnesium Metal From the PRC Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) Tianjin 177.62 RSM 128.11 Jiangsu Metals 117.41 Guangling 140.09 China-Wide Rate 177.62 Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Because we have postponed the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary determination, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of wooden bedroom furniture, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date of the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. 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 after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 24, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2478 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-819] Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a petition filed by U.S. Magnesium LLC (U.S. Magnesium), United Steelworkers of America, Local 8319, Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics and Allied Workers International, Local 374 (collectively, the Petitioners), the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated and is conducting an investigation of sales of magnesium metal from the Russian Federation for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation,* 69 FR 15293 (March 25, 2004) ( *Initiation Notice* ). The Department preliminarily determines that magnesium metal from the Russian Federation 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Reitze or Sebastian Wright at
(202)482-0666 or
(202)482-5254, respectively; Office of AD/CVD Operations VI, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preliminary Determination Case History This investigation was initiated on March 18, 2004. *See Initiation Notice* . Since the initiation of the investigation, the following events have occurred. On March 26, 2004, the Department issued a letter providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on a proposed set of model-match criteria. We received comments in response to this letter from the Petitioners and JSC Avisma Magnesium-Titanium Works and VSMPO-Tirus, U.S. (Avisma) on April 1, 2004. Based on these submissions, we determined the appropriate model-match characteristics and included them in the antidumping questionnaire issued to Avisma and Solikamsk Magnesium Works (SMW), Respondents in this investigation, on April 24, 2004. On March 31, 2004, the Department set aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding the scope of this investigation. On April 16, 2004, the following companies submitted timely comments: Reade Manufacturing Company, Magnesium Elektron North America, Inc., and Hart Metals, Inc. (collectively, Reade) and Avisma. On April 26, 2004, the Department received rebuttal comments from the Petitioners, and additional comments from Northwest Alloys, Inc. (Northwest) and Alcoa, Inc. (Alcoa). On June 25, June 28, and July 9, 2004, we received additional comments on the scope of this investigation from Petitioners, Alcoa, Reade, and Avisma, in response to questions that we issued to all interested parties on June 9, 2004. On May 17, 2004, the United States International Trade Commission
(ITC)preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of the products subject to this investigation are materially injuring an industry in the United States producing the domestic like products. *See Magnesium From China and Russia,* 69 FR 29329 (May 21, 2004) ( *ITC Preliminary Determination* ). On June 28, 2004, the Petitioners requested that the Department extend the preliminary determination in this investigation from August 5, 2004, to September 24, 2004. *See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in Antidumping Duty Investigations of Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation,* 69 FR 43561 (July 21, 2004) ( *Postponement of Preliminary Determinations* ). Because there were no compelling reasons to deny the request, we postponed the preliminary determination to September 24, 2004, under section 733(c)(1) of the Act. In their petition, the Petitioners alleged that Russian energy costs were distorted by excessive involvement by the Russian government in the energy sector, and requested that the Department make adjustments to energy costs to account for the effects of this involvement. In the *Initiation Notice,* the Department stated its intent to investigate the Russian government's involvement in the energy sector, and to consider whether an adjustment was appropriate. On July 30, 2004, the Petitioners submitted additional information to support their claim that Russian government involvement resulted in gas and electricity prices that do not reflect “economic reality,” stating their argument that the Department has the legal authority to disregard or adjust the energy costs reported by Respondents to account for this distortion, and suggesting options for correcting the effects of this distortion. On September 1 and 3, 2004, Avisma submitted arguments to rebut the Petitioners' claims. On September 15, 2004, SMW submitted comments which endorsed the legal analysis of Avisma's September 1 and 3, 2004, comments. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures 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. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that exporters requesting postponement of the final determination must also request an extension of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act from a four-month period until not more than six months. On September 14 and September 21, 2004, we received requests to postpone the final determination from SMW and Avisma, respectively. Both requests consented to the extension of provisional measures from four months to no longer than six months. Since this preliminary determination is affirmative, the requests for postponement are made by exporters that account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and since there is no compelling reason to deny the Respondents' requests, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the final determination until the 135th day after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** and have extended provisional measures to no longer than six months. Selection of Respondents Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to investigate either:
(1)A sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid, based on the information available at the time of selection; or
(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the petition, the Petitioners identified two potential producers and exporters of magnesium metal in the Russian Federation: Avisma and SMW. This was confirmed by the Department's analysis of data collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which was placed on the record on June 17, 2004. On May 21, 2004, the Department received an e-mail message from another Russian producer of magnesium. In a subsequent e-mail message, the producer informed the Department that it had sold a small amount of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). It also informed the Department that it is unrelated to the other Respondents. The sales amount reported by this producer is extremely small in comparison to the import statistics on the ITC Web site. As discussed in the memorandum for selection of Respondents, the Department found that it was not practical to examine all known exporters and producers of the subject merchandise. *See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation; Selection of Mandatory Respondents,* June 29, 2004 ( *Respondent Selection Memo* ). Furthermore, the Department found that the two Respondents named in the initiation account for almost all exports of subject merchandise to the United States. Id. Accordingly, because Avisma and SMW account for the largest volume of the subject merchandise that can be reasonably examined, the Department has calculated individual dumping margins for those two companies. *See* section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Period of Investigation The period of investigation
(POI)is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of filing of the petition ( *i.e.* , March 2004) involving imports from a market economy, and is in accordance with the Department's regulations. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation For the purpose of this investigation, the product covered is magnesium metal (also referred to as magnesium). The products covered by this investigation are primary and secondary pure and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this investigation includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium. The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium, including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes:
(1)Products that contain at least 99.95 percent 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 magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and
(3)chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or not conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy.” The scope of this investigation excludes:
(1)Magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and
(2)mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite. 1 1 This second exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000-2001 investigations of magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. *See 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); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel,* 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); *Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation,* 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys, because they are not chemically combined in liquid form and cast into the same ingot. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under items 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and 8104.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Scope Issues On March 31, 2004, the Department set aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding the scope of this investigation. As discussed above, we received comments from Reade, Northwest, Alcoa, and Avisma, as well as rebuttal comments from Petitioners. These comments are summarized in the Department's September 24, 2004 memorandum *Product Coverage in Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation* ( *Product Coverage Memorandum* ). In their comments, parties raised two issues:
(1)Whether alloy and pure magnesium should be treated as two separate like products; and
(2)whether ultra high purity
(UHP)magnesium should be excluded from the scope of this investigation. Based on our analysis of the evidence on the record, we preliminarily determine that UHP magnesium is within the scope of the investigation. We also preliminarily determine that pure magnesium and alloy magnesium constitute a single like product. For a detailed discussion of our decision, *see Product Coverage Memorandum.* Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of magnesium metal were made in the United States at LTFV, we compared the constructed export price
(CEP)to the normal value (NV), as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average CEPs. We then compared these to weighted-average home market prices in Russia. Date of Sale Avisma reported invoice date as the date of sale for both the home and U.S. markets. Avisma issues invoices at the time of shipment, which, in the home market, may come after payment. For contract sales, the invoice establishes the price and quantity of the sale, as well as the parameters by which price and quantity may change under the contract. Invoices also set the price and quantity for spot sales. Because the material terms of sale are established when the invoice is issued, and because of our presumption that invoice date is the date of sale, as stated in section 351.401(i) of our regulations, we are using invoice date as the date of sale for all Avisma transactions in both markets. For both the home and U.S. markets, SMW reported contract date as the date of sale. The contract date is the date when the material terms of sale ( *i.e.* , price and quantity) are first established with the customer, but, as with Avisma's contracts, these values are allowed to change under the terms of the contract. In such cases where the price or quantity of a contract were amended, SMW reported the date of the amendment as the date of sale. SMW reported all sales with contracts that were initiated or amended during or prior to the POI and with invoices issued during the POI. Because the material terms of SMW's contracts are susceptible to amendment, and in fact are amended, we are using invoice date as the date of sale for this preliminary determination for both the home and U.S. markets. As noted above, the Department's regulations presume that invoice date is the date of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i) (“In identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice”). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the proper date of sale for both markets. Constructed Export Price For U.S. price, we used CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections 772(c) and
(d)of the Act. In its questionnaire responses, Avisma identified all of its sales to the United States as CEP sales. All of Avisma's sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they were made for the account of Avisma, by Avisma's U.S. affiliate, VSMPO-Tirus, U.S., Inc. (Tirus US), to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. U.S. sales to the first unaffiliated party were made in the United States, by the U.S. affiliate, thus satisfying the Department's requirements for treating sales as CEP sales. Avisma and Tirus US are affiliated through common ownership. *See* Section 771(33)(F) of the Act. In accordance with Section 772(c)(2) of the Act, for Avisma's CEP sales we made deductions from price for movement expenses and discounts, and additions for billing adjustments, where appropriate. More specifically, after reviewing the terms of delivery for Avisma's CEP sales to the United States, we deducted early payment discounts, added billing adjustments, and deducted foreign inland freight from plant to port, international freight and insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. inland freight. *See Analysis Memorandum for Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: JSC AVISMA Titanium-Magnesium Works and VSMPO-Tirus, U.S., Inc.* ( *Avisma Analysis Memorandum* ). Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to calculate CEP. Accordingly, we deducted direct selling expenses and indirect selling expenses related to commercial activity in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. SMW also identified all of its U.S. sales as CEP sales in its questionnaire responses. During the POI, all sales of SMW's subject merchandise to the United States were made through its U.S. affiliates, Solimin and Cometals. We find that Cometals is affiliated with SMW by virtue of an agency agreement, in which Cometals acts as a North American distributor of pure and alloy magnesium products. *See* Section 771(33) of the Act; *See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Engineered Process Gas Turbo-Compressor Systems, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, and Whether Complete or Incomplete, from Japan,* 62 FR 24394, 24403 (May 5, 1997). For a complete discussion of the basis for finding SMW and Cometals affiliated, *see Analysis Memorandum for Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Solikamsk Magnesium Works* ( *SMW Analysis Memorandum* ). We also find that Solimin is affiliated with SMW under section 771(33)(G) of the Act because it is wholly owned by SMW. All of SMW's sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they were made for the account of SMW, by SMW's U.S. affiliates, Solimin and Cometals, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. U.S. sales to the first unaffiliated party were made in the United States, by the U.S. affiliates, thus satisfying the Department's requirements for characterizing sales as CEP sales. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, for SMW's CEP sales, we made deductions from price for movement expenses and billing adjustments, where appropriate. More specifically, after reviewing the terms of delivery for SMW's CEP sales, we deducted foreign inland freight from plant to port; foreign brokerage, handling, and port charges; international freight and insurance; U.S. brokerage, handling, and port charges; U.S. warehousing; U.S. and foreign customs duties; and U.S. inland freight. *See SMW Analysis Memorandum.* In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted direct selling expenses and indirect selling expenses related to commercial activity in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate NV based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate), and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP. Under the statute, the Department will normally consider quantity (or value) insufficient if it is less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. *See* Section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. We found that both Avisma and SMW had a viable home market for magnesium metal. As such, Avisma and SMW submitted home market sales data for the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the section below on “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices” section. B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test We used sales to affiliated customers in the home market only where we determined such sales were made at arm's-length prices ( *i.e.* , at prices comparable to the prices at which the Respondent sold identical merchandise to unaffiliated customers). To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. In accordance with the Department's practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to be at arm's-length prices. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). For the sole affiliated reseller that failed the arm's-length test, we based NV on its sales to unaffiliated parties ( *i.e.* , downstream sales). The remaining affiliated parties that did not pass the arm's-length test were consumers, and, therefore, there were no downstream sales on which to base NV. Sales to these affiliated consumers were excluded from our NV calculations. *See 19 CFR 351.403(d); see also Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade,* 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). C. Cost of Production Analysis On June 29, 2004, Petitioners alleged that Avisma and SMW made sales in the home market at less than the COP. On July 15, 2004, Petitioners amended this allegation and revised their methodology. Based on these allegations, and in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that magnesium sales were made in Russia at prices below the cost of production (COP). *See Initiation of Sales Below Cost Investigation: Avisma* (July 22, 2004) ( *Avisma Cost Initiation Memorandum* ) and *Initiation of Sales Below Cost Investigation: Solikamsk Magnesium Works* (July 30, 2004) ( *SMW Cost Initiation Memorandum* ). As a result, the Department is conducting an investigation to determine whether Avisma and SMW made home market sales of magnesium at prices below their respective COPs during the POI within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home market selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, including interest expenses and packing expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by Avisma and SMW in their cost questionnaire responses, with the following changes. We adjusted Avisma's financial expense ratio to include the total net foreign exchange gains and losses from Avisma's 2003 audited financial statements. *See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, from Robert B. Greger, Senior Accountant, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination for Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation,* (September 24, 2004). For SMW, we revised the reported general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio to include certain administrative costs recorded as part of the cost of goods sold in the company's financial statements. We then excluded these costs from the cost of goods sold denominator that we used to calculate the G&A expense ratio. We also revised SMW's reported financial expense ratio to exclude certain administrative costs from the cost of goods sold denominator that we used to calculate the end ratio. *See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, from Ernest Z. Gzyrian, Senior Accountant, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination for Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation—Solikamsk Magnesium Works,* (September 24, 2004). As noted above under “Case History,” Petitioners have alleged that Russian energy costs are distorted by excessive government involvement, and have requested that the Department make adjustments to Respondents' reported energy costs to account for the effects of this involvement. In their various submissions (identified in the “Case History” section above). Petitioners argue such adjustments are allowed under section 773(f) of the Act, which states: Costs shall normally be calculated based on the records of the exporter or producer of the merchandise, if such records are kept in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country (or the producing country, where appropriate) and reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the merchandise. Petitioners argue the use of the word “normally” in section 773(f) of the Act gives the Department the discretion to disregard reported costs in certain circumstances. According to Petitioners, energy is a cost “associated with” the production and sale of magnesium. Petitioners argue that non-market forces pervade the Russian energy sector, and that Russian energy prices do not reflect the true cost of energy production. In support of their position, Petitioners submitted documents from various organizations examining the Russian energy sector, and based on their analysis of these documents, they proposed options for the requested adjustment. Petitioners also noted that the Department's 2002 memorandum granting Russia market economy status, and the suspension agreement signed in 2002 in the antidumping investigation of cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Russia, alluded to the fact that prices in the Russian energy sector would merit particular scrutiny in future antidumping proceedings. In Petitioners' view, therefore, there is a sufficient legal and factual basis to reject Respondents' reported energy costs. Respondents, on the other hand, argue that the Department has no authority to disregard their reported energy costs. Respondents note that, in a case involving a market economy, the Department is required to use the companies' reported energy costs unless one of the exceptions specified in the statute exists. Respondents argue that the statute focuses on the costs to the respondent, not the costs of an unaffiliated energy supplier, and there is no statutory authority to disregard a company's costs due to alleged government action. Rather, Respondents argue, there is a long line of precedent from both the Department and the courts holding that a company's reported costs may not be adjusted due to the receipt of government subsidies. We believe that the legal arguments raised by both Petitioners and Respondents have merit, but we do not reach this legal issue in this preliminary determination. For the reasons discussed below, we have preliminarily concluded that the factual record of this investigation, to date, does not lead us to conclude that the Department should disregard Respondents' reported energy costs at this time. We have carefully reviewed Petitioners' allegations regarding energy prices in Russia, as well as all relevant facts and information on the record, particularly since the Department has, in other contexts, expressed concerns about Russian energy pricing and pricing policies. Because, in the production of magnesium, gas costs are less important than electricity costs, our discussion focuses on electricity costs. 2 While the evidence that Petitioners have placed on the record indicates that Russian energy reforms remain incomplete, particularly on the structural side, the evidence and arguments advanced to date do not sufficiently support Petitioners' allegation that Russian electricity prices are highly distorted from a full cost-recovery standpoint. 2 For a comparison of the relative importance of each input in overall magnesium production costs, *see SMW Analysis Memorandum* and *Avisma Analysis Memorandum* . The analysis submitted by Petitioners to support their allegation that there is a significant price distortion compares retail-level cost (of sales off the low-voltage grid) to electricity prices Respondents paid, which, as reported by Respondents in their questionnaire responses, reflect sales off the high-voltage grid, *i.e.* , at the wholesale level. Therefore, this does not appear to be an apples-to-apples comparison. Petitioners also argue that any measure of cost recovery must take into account the costs of replacing the electricity transmission and distribution grid. While the Department continues to evaluate these arguments, we have several concerns. For example, it is unclear how the higher distribution costs that are associated with sales off a low-voltage grid should or could be evaluated in a wholesale price-cost analysis. Furthermore, the matter of estimating capital costs is problematic, in part, because of assumptions about future conditions that can underlie some estimates. Finally, Petitioners argue that a meaningful measure of cost recovery for the electricity sector must include a price for gas used to make electricity that itself reflects full cost recovery. With respect to this argument, we have identified a number of issues that require further consideration. For example, one would need to assess the role of other non-gas based electricity supply sources in determining whether a significant distortion exists and the extent to which it is appropriate to employ estimates of future prices in calculating any adjustment to electricity prices. In addition, assuming, *arguendo* , that the Department were to reach the issue of whether it has the legal authority to disregard reported costs of production of the subject merchandise, this still leaves open the question of the boundaries of any such authority to examine the cost of inputs into the inputs used in producing the subject merchandise. Given these questions and reservations, the Department considers that it is appropriate to use Respondents' reported energy costs for purposes of the preliminary determination. We will, however, continue examining this issue in preparation for our final determination. We encourage the parties to submit additional information and arguments on this issue, inviting them in particular to comment on the concerns that we have outlined above. We also will be verifying Respondents' questionnaire responses including the information about their energy purchases that we have relied upon in this preliminary analysis. In order to allow proper review by the Department and all interested parties, we request that any additional arguments and factual information concerning this issue be filed as early as possible during the remainder of the proceeding. With respect to factual information, the following deadlines will apply. Any new, revised or updated factual information concerning Respondents' actual energy costs and all aspects of their energy usage and their relationships (if any) with energy suppliers must be submitted no later than the deadlines specified in any future questionnaires issued by the Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(ii), since such information is part of the questionnaire responses which must be verified. Any new factual information and arguments pertaining to the broader issue of whether electricity prices in Russia are or are not significantly distorted and whether an adjustment to such prices is or is not warranted must be submitted no later than November 8, 2004, and rebuttals of any such factual information and rebuttal comments no later than November 18, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) and (c)(2)(ii). If the Department finds that an adjustment may be warranted after further review, we will issue for comment a memorandum outlining our preliminary analysis of why such an adjustment is warranted and the type of adjustment we are proposing, in order to ensure that all aspects of such an adjustment are carefully considered in time for the final determination. 2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COP for Avisma and SMW to their home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( *i.e.* , a period of one year) in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test We disregarded below-cost sales where
(1)20 percent or more of either Respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were made at prices below the COP, and thus such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act, and
(2)based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POI, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that both Avisma and SMW made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices Where appropriate, we determined NV for Avisma and SMW based on home market prices. However, both Respondents reported a significant number of “barter” sales in the home market. As this is the first investigation of Russian exporters conducted since the Department determined Russia to be a market economy, 3 within the context of the Act, the Department has not previously been presented with the issue of examining barter sales in the Russian market. 3 *See Memorandum for Faryar Shirzad from Albert Hsu, Inquiry into the Status of the Russian Federation as a Non-Market Economy Country Under the U.S. Antidumping Law,* dated June 6, 2002, effective April 1, 2002. We have examined barter sales in the Argentinian and Japanese markets in two cases decided prior to the effective date of the amendments made by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina* , 58 FR 7066 (Feb. 4, 1993), we disregarded barter sales as being outside the ordinary course of trade. In *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain All-Terrain Vehicles From Japan* , 54 FR 4864, 4865 (Jan. 31, 1989), we found barter trade to be small and insignificant, and disregarded it. In *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 54203 (Sept. 16, 2003) ( *Cement From Mexico* ), a case subsequent to the passage of the URAA, the Department encountered an exchange of cement between a Mexican producer and an unaffiliated U.S. customer. The Respondent in that case argued that this “swap” of cement should not be considered a U.S. sale. Relying on information confirmed at verification, the Department concluded that this “swap” of cement with an unaffiliated customer constituted a U.S. sale. We stated that “{w}e verified the appropriateness of {the reported price} and found no discrepancies. At verification, CEMEX explained that this amount reflects a price established between CEMEX and its unaffiliated customer for actual sales made between the parties in the past.” *See Cement From Mexico* and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at comment 9. Thus, we noted the importance of verification, especially concerning the “appropriateness” of the reported price. Therefore, the Department will need to examine this issue in greater detail. Questions we will need to examine further concerning these sales include, but are not limited to: the alignment of barter prices with non-barter prices charged for similar goods sold; the linkage of the price charged with the goods received, including any internal and external procedures for ensuring reasonable compensation is received in exchange for magnesium; and how these sales are recorded in Respondents' books and records. Of particular concern in this case, is the apparent discrepancy between prices charged on average for products sold on a barter basis compared to prices charged for the identical or most similar products when sold on a cash basis. While the Department has issued questionnaires concerning these sales in general, given the novelty of this issue for the Russian market, noted above, we do not currently have enough information concerning these sales on the record, and therefore have concluded that we should disregard the barter sales in our calculations for this preliminary determination. For all remaining sales, we deducted home market movement expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made circumstances of sale
(COS)adjustments for Avisma's and SMW's transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense). We also made adjustments for any differences in packing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. *See Avisma Analysis Memorandum* and *SMW Analysis Memorandum* . E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on constructed value (CV). Accordingly, for sales of magnesium for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no useable sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, above. We based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting from CV direct selling expenses incurred on home-market sales. F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as U.S. sales. *See* 19 CFR 351.412. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price sale in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the level of the sales from which we derive SG&A and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer in the home market. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997). For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See *Micron Technology Inc.* v. *United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In the current investigation, SMW claimed that sales in the home market and the United States market were made at different LOTs, but did not claim a LOT adjustment. Based on the selling functions performed, we preliminarily determine that SMW did not sell at different LOTs in the home and U.S. markets. After examining the selling functions for the one LOT reported in the United States, and the two claimed LOTs reported in the home market, we determine that these sale are, in fact, all made at one LOT. While SMW claimed that there were some differences between these various distribution channels, which it claimed to constitute separate LOTs, we have preliminarily determined that some of these differences do not constitute differences in selling functions. Differences between other functions, *e.g.* , provisions of warranty or types of packing, are already accounted for through other aspects of the Department's calculations, such as the deduction of direct selling expenses from CEP and NV. Moreover, the Department finds that the differences in selling functions are not significant differences. Since much of our analysis involves business proprietary information, a full discussion of the bases for our preliminary determination is set forth in the *SMW Analysis Memorandum* . In conducting this analysis, we examined the U.S. LOT after excluding the selling functions performed by SMW's U.S. affiliates ( *i.e.* , after excluding those selling functions associated with the expenses deducted under 772(d)(1)). Because we have determined that the U.S. LOT is the same LOT as that in the home market, we have preliminarily determined that the NV LOT is not more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT, and that, therefore, a CEP offset is not warranted under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Avisma reported one LOT in the home market and one LOT in the United States. It did not claim a LOT adjustment. After examining the selling functions performed in the home market and the United States (excluding those functions performed by the U.S. affiliate) we have preliminarily determined that the LOT for home market and U.S. sales is the same. *See Avisma Analysis Memorandum* . We have concluded that there are no significant differences between the selling functions performed in these two markets by Avisma. We note that, as with SMW, some of the reported differences do not appear to relate to selling functions, but to other functions. Also as with SMW, because U.S. and home market sales are at the same LOT, a CEP offset is not appropriate. Currency Conversions We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the Department's preferred source for exchange rates). Verification In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the questionnaire responses of Avisma and SMW before making our final determination. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of magnesium from Russia that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . We are also instructing CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margins as indicated in the chart below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Producer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percentage) Avisma 10.62 SMW 21.49 All Others 12.36 Disclosure In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in this preliminary determination within five days of the date of public announcement. Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs on the later of 50 days after the date of publication of this notice or ten days after the issuance of the verification reports. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(I). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the deadline for the submission of case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). 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. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we will tentatively hold the hearing two days after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 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 date of 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. At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). The Department will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of the Department's preliminary determination. *See* 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1). International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of magnesium metal from the Russian Federation are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 24, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2479 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-841] Initiation of Anti Dumping Duty Investigation: Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lehman or Richard Rimlinger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0180 or
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On September 7, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a petition on imports of polyvinyl alcohol
(PVA)from Taiwan filed in proper form by Celanese Chemicals Ltd. (the petitioner). On September 9, 2004, and September 15, 2004, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires requesting additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petition. The Department also requested additional information in September 17, 2004, and September 24, 2004, conference telephone calls with the petitioner. *See* Memorandum from Catherine Cartsos through Mark Ross to the File dated September 20, 2004, and Memorandum from Susan Lehman through Mark Ross to the File dated September 27, 2004. The petitioner filed supplements to the petition on September 13, 2004, September 21, 2004, and September 27, 2004. On September 23, 2004, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont), a domestic producer of PVA, upon the request of the Department, filed a statement detailing DuPont's total production of PVA for the calendar year 2003. On September 24, 2004, DuPont submitted two challenges to the petition. On September 27, 2004, Solutia Inc. (Solutia), a domestic producer of PVA, submitted a document informing the Department that it “neither supports nor opposes the antidumping duty petition” on PVA from Taiwan. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of PVA from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring and threaten to injure an industry in the United States. The Department finds that the petitioner filed this petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(c) of the Act and the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the investigation that the petitioner is requesting the Department to initiate ( *see* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” below). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is PVA. This product consists of all PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 percent, whether or not mixed or diluted with commercial levels of defoamer or boric acid. PVA in fiber form is not included in the scope of this investigation. The merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under subheading 3905.30.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties, Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27323)(May 19, 1997), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for:
(1)At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(2)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. *See* section 771(10) of the Act. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 1 1 *See USEC, Inc.* v. *United States,* 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing *Algoma Steel Corp.* v. *United States,* 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 1988). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” *i.e.,* the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. With regard to the definition of domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information presented by the petitioner, we have determined that there is a single domestic like product, PVA, which is defined in the “Scope of Investigation” section above, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of the domestic like product. On September 24, 2004, the Department received opposition to the petition from DuPont, a producer of the domestic like product. Also, on September 27, 2004, the Department received a submission from Solutia, a producer of the domestic like product, expressing that it takes neither an affirmative nor a negative position with regard to this proceeding. However, the Department confirmed the necessary industry support based on the actual 2003 production figures which each domestic producer provided ( *i.e.* , the petitioner represents over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like product). *See* Attachment II of the Initiation Checklist, dated September 27, 2004 (Initiation Checklist), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce. The domestic producer who supports the petition accounts for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) are met. Further, the domestic producer who supports the petition accounts for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition. Thus, the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) are also met. On September 24, 2004, the same producer of the domestic like product that filed an opposition to the petition (DuPont) filed a submission in which it urged the Department to reject the petition “because the petitioner has engaged in improper conduct” with respect to the establishment of industry support. Because the petitioner represents over 50 percent of total U.S. production, notwithstanding the allegations contained in DuPont's September 24, 2004, submission, it is not appropriate to reject the petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. Period of Investigation The anticipated period of investigation is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Export Price and Normal Value The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate this investigation. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value
(NV)are discussed in greater detail in the Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin calculation, if appropriate. The petition identified one producer of PVA in Taiwan. *See* Volume I of the September 7, 2004, petition at page 25. The petitioner based export price
(EP)on Taiwan export statistics, U.S. price quotes from two U.S. distributors engaged in the sale of Taiwan-origin PVA, and U.S. import statistics. We have not used the Taiwanese EP statistics because it is our practice to use U.S. import statistics used in the petition when there is a close correlation between the relevant HTS number and the subject merchandise. We found no compelling evidence to suggest that we should use the Taiwanese information over U.S. information. We have not used the U.S. price quotes because the prices were not as reasonably reliable as average per-unit values derived from U.S. import statistics. The price quotes were estimated prices based on rejected sales offers made by the petitioner. Therefore, we used the average unit prices based on U.S. import statistics that the petitioner provided in Exhibit 2 of its September 21, 2004, submission. The petitioner calculated EP by deducting an amount for foreign inland freight from factory to port. We reviewed the information provided regarding EP and have determined that it represents information reasonably available to the petitioner and have reviewed it for adequacy and accuracy. See Initiation Checklist. To calculate NV, the petitioner obtained contemporaneous home-market prices for PVA sold in Taiwan from a Web site sponsored by the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Industry. The petitioner made an adjustment to home-market price by deducting amounts for inland freight and imputed credit expense. The petitioner compared home-market prices to its own cost of production (COP), adjusted for known cost differences between Taiwan and the United States, to support a sales-below-cost allegation. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the URAA, states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or producers. See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 833 (1994). The SAA states that “Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.” *Id.* Further, the SAA provides that the “new section 773(b)(2)(A) retains the current requirement that Commerce have ‘reasonable grounds to believe or suspect' that below cost sales have occurred before initiating such an investigation. ‘Reasonable grounds’ * * * exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign market in question are at below-cost prices.” *Id.* Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM and SG&A (including financial expenses). The petitioner calculated COP based on its own experience as a U.S. producer during 2003, adjusted for known differences between costs incurred to manufacture PVA in the United States and in Taiwan. With the exception of labor, the publicly available data the petitioner used was contemporaneous with the prospective POI. *See* Initiation Checklist. Based upon a comparison of the home-market prices of the foreign like product to the calculated COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation. As such, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). Consistent with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, the petitioner included in CV an amount for profit. For profit, the petitioner relied upon amounts reported in Chang Chun Petrochemical Ltd.'s (CCP's), the potential respondent's, 2003 financial statements. We adjusted the petitioner's calculated margin because the petitioner subtracted inland freight expenses from the CV and we do not normally deduct such expenses from CV. Therefore, we added the inland freight expense of 0.30 New Taiwan dollars per kilogram to the CV calculated by the petitioner and then converted the recalculated CV to a U.S. dollars per pound figure using the same methodology as the petitioner used. This results in a CV of US$ 0.8418 per pound and a U.S. price that is US$ 0.2398 per pound lower than CV. We reviewed the NV and CV information provided and have determined that it represents information reasonably available to the petitioner and have reviewed it for adequacy and accuracy. Based on a comparison of EP derived from U.S. average unit values
(AUVs)to adjusted CV, the dumping margin is 39.83 percent for PVA from Taiwan. As indicated above, the petitioner also provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PVA in the home market were made at prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. Fair-Value Comparison Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of PVA from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured and is threatened with material injury by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value. The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is evidenced by the volume of lost sales, declining profitability, reductions in employment, and stagnant capacity utilization. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that injury and threat of injury is evidenced by negative effects on its revenue, market share, and growth. These allegations are supported by relevant evidence including import data, lost sales, and pricing information. The Department assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation and determined that these allegations are supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See* Initiation Checklist. Initiation of Antidumping Investigation Based upon the examination of the petition on PVA from Taiwan, and other information reasonably available to the Department, we find that the petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether imports of PVA from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives of the government of Taiwan. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to the producer named in the petition. International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the International Trade Commission The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than October 22, 2004, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of PVA from Taiwan are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2476 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton, Wool Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Hong Kong September 28, 2004. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection adjusting limits. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call
(202)927-5850, or refer to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection website at http://www.cbp.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing and special shift. A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see **Federal Register** notice 69 FR 4926, published on February 2, 2004). Also see 68 FR 59917, published on October 20, 2003. D. Michael Hutchinson, Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements September 28, 2004. Commissioner, *Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229.* Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on October 14, 2003, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Hong Kong and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2004 and extends through December 31, 2004. Effective on October 4, 2004, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing: Category Adjusted twelve-month limit 1 Group II 237, 239pt. 2 , 331pt. 3 332-348, 351, 352, 359(1) 4 , 359(2) 5 , 359pt. 6 , 433-438, 440-448, 459pt. 7 , 631pt. 8 633-648, 651, 652, 659(1) 9 , 659(2) 10 , 659pt. 11 , and 443/444/643/644(1), as a group 945,555,286 square meters equivalent. Sublevels in Group II 647 688,867 dozen. 648 1,217,104 dozen of which not more than 1,217,104 dozen shall be in Category 648-W 12 . Within Group II subgroup 342 658,059 dozen. 351 1,271,964 dozen. 642 306,457 dozen. 651 410,382 dozen. Group III-only 852 1,854,891 square meters equivalent. 1 The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December 31, 2003. 2 Category 239pt.: only HTS number 6209.20.5040 (diapers). 3 Category 331pt.: all HTS numbers except 6116.10.1720, 6116.10.4810, 6116.10.5510, 6116.10.7510, 6116.92.6410, 6116.92.6420, 6116.92.6430, 6116.92.6440, 6116.92.7450, 6116.92.7460, 6116.92.7470, 6116.92.8800, 6116.92.9400 and 6116.99.9510. 4 Category 359(1): only HTS numbers 6103.42.2025, 6103.49.8034, 6104.62.1020, 6104.69.8010, 6114.20.0048, 6114.20.0052, 6203.42.2010, 6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010, 6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025 and 6211.42.0010. 5 Category 359(2): only HTS numbers 6103.19.2030, 6103.19.9030, 6104.12.0040, 6104.19.8040, 6110.20.1022, 6110.20.1024, 6110.20.2030, 6110.20.2035, 6110.90.9044, 6110.90.9046, 6201.92.2010, 6202.92.2020, 6203.19.1030, 6203.19.9030, 6204.12.0040, 6204.19.8040, 6211.32.0070 and 6211.42.0070. 6 Category 359pt.: all HTS numbers except 6115.19.8010, 6117.10.6010, 6117.20.9010, 6203.22.1000, 6204.22.1000, 6212.90.0010, 6214.90.0010, 6406.99.1550, 6505.90.1525, 6505.90.1540, 6505.90.2060, 6505.90.2545 and HTS numbers in 359(1) and 359(2). 7 Category 459pt.: all HTS numbers except 6115.19.8020, 6117.10.1000, 6117.10.2010, 6117.20.9020, 6212.90.0020, 6214.20.0000, 6405.20.6030, 6405.20.6060, 6405.20.6090, 6406.99.1505, 6406.99.1560. 8 Category 631pt.: all HTS numbers except 6116.10.1730, 6116.10.4820, 6116.10.5520, 6116.10.7520, 6116.93.8800, 6116.93.9400, 6116.99.4800, 6116.99.5400 and 6116.99.9530. 9 Category 659(1): only HTS numbers 6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020, 6103.43.2025, 6103.49.2000, 6103.49.8038, 6104.63.1020, 6104.63.1030, 6104.69.1000, 6104.69.8014, 6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054, 6203.43.2010, 6203.43.2090, 6203.49.1010, 6203.49.1090, 6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010, 6210.10.9010, 6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017 and 6211.43.0010. 10 Category 659(2): only HTS numbers 6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020, 6112.41.0010, 6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030, 6112.41.0040, 6211.11.1010, 6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010 and 6211.12.1020. 11 Category 659pt.: all HTS numbers except 6115.11.0010, 6115.12.2000, 6117.10.2030, 6117.20.9030, 6212.90.0030, 6214.30.0000, 6214.40.0000, 6406.99.1510, 6406.99.1540 and HTS numbers in 659(1) and 659(2). 12 Category 648-W: only HTS numbers 6204.23.0040, 6204.23.0045, 6204.29.2020, 6204.29.2025, 6204.29.4038, 6204.63.2000, 6204.63.3000, 6204.63.3510, 6204.63.3530, 6204.63.3532, 6204.63.3540, 6204.69.2510, 6204.69.2530, 6204.69.2540, 6204.69.2560, 6204.69.6030, 6204.69.9030, 6210.50.5035, 6211.20.1555, 6211.20.6820, 6211.43.0040 and 6217.90.9060. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Sincerely, D. Michael Hutchinson, *Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.* [FR Doc. E4-2475 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton, Wool and Man-Made Fiber Textiles and Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Indonesia September 29, 2004. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection adjusting limits. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)344-2650. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call
(202)927-5850, or refer to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection website at http://www.cbp.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing. A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see **Federal Register** notice 69 FR 4926, published on February 2, 2004). Also see 68 FR 65254, published on November 19, 2003. D. Michael Hutchinson, Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements September 29, 2004. Commissioner, *Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229.* Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on November 13, 2003, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Indonesia and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2004 and extends through December 31, 2004. Effective on October 4, 2004, you are directed to adjust the limits for the categories listed below, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing: Category Twelve-month restraint limit 1 Levels in Group I 314-O 2 108,441,116 square meters. 445/446 73,112 dozen. 619/620 18,687,153 square meters. 643 670,628 numbers. 645/646 1,586,209 dozen. Subgroup in Group II 400, 410, 414, 434, 435, 436, 438, 440, 442, 444, 459pt. and 469pt., as a group 3,850,936 square meters equivalent. In Group II subgroup 435 60,459 dozen. 1 The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December 31, 2003. 2 Category 314-O: all HTS numbers except 5209.51.6015. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Sincerely, D. Michael Hutchinson, *Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.* [FR Doc. E4-2466 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 04-33] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/OPS-ADMIN,
(703)604-6575. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 04-33 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: September 27, 2004. L. M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN04OC04.046 EN04OC04.047 EN04OC04.048 EN04OC04.049 [FR Doc. 04-22175 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 15
Traces to 15 documents
5 references not yet in our index
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 243 F.3d 1301
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1
  • 688 F. Supp. 639
  • Pub. L. 104-164
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Correction to final results of antidumping duty administrative review
C.F.R.§ 351.205
C.F.R.§ 351.210
C.F.R.§ 351.204
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.403
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
F. App'x243 F.3d 1301
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1
Cites 20 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.