Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Japan: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-806]

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Japan: Notice of Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

agency: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

effective date: July 8, 1994.

for further information contact: Erik Warga or Dorothy Tomaszewski,

Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0922 and (202) 482-0631,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 8, 1992 (57 FR 11935), the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal Register notices of ``Opportunity

to Request Administrative Review.'' In response to the request made by

Petitioners, Chemetals Inc. and Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, the

Department initiated the administrative review on May 22, 1992 (57 FR

21769) of the antidumping duty order on Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide

(EMD) from Japan on April 17, 1989 (54 FR 15244). The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States,

Tosoh Corporation (TOSOH) during the period, April 1, 1991, through

March 31, 1992. The Department is conducting this review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

On August 26, 1992, the Department issued a questionnaire to TOSOH

for the 1991-1992 administrative review. The questionnaire had three

sections: section A, requesting general information; section B,

requesting information on U.S. sales; and section C, requesting

information on home market sales. TOSOH submitted its questionnaire

response on November 13, 1992. Petitioners submitted comments on

TOSOH's questionnaire response on December 2, 1992.

On December 18, 1992, petitioners alleged to the Department that

TOSOH was selling the subject merchandise to the United States at

prices below cost of production. On March 29, 1994, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, the Department issued section D of the

questionnaire, which requested information on TOSOH's cost of

production. On April 29, 1994, TOSOH informed the Department that it

would not respond to section D of the questionnaire. TOSOH explained

that its small role in the U.S. market does not justify the high cost

of completing the questionnaire.

Since TOSOH did not respond to section D of the Department's

questionnaire, we consider it to be an uncooperative respondent.

Therefore, pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, the Department has

preliminarily determined to assess antidumping duties of 77.43 percent

ad valorem based on best information available (BIA) for this period of

review.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by the review are shipments of electrolytic

manganese dioxide. EMD is manganese dioxide (MnO2) that has been

refined in an electrolysis process. During the review period, such

merchandise was classifiable under subheading 2820.10.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The

written description remains dispositive.

On January 6, 1992, the Department published a final scope ruling,

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Japan; Final Scope Ruling (57 FR

395; January 6, 1992), in which it affirmed that high-grade chemical

manganese dioxide (CMD-U) is a ``later-developed product'' and is

included within the scope of the order on EMD from Japan. For a

detailed discussion of that ruling, see Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide

from Japan; Preliminary Scope Ruling (56 FR 56977; November 7, 1991).

Preliminary Results of the Review

This review covers EMD entries into the United States by one

manufacturer/exporter, TOSOH. Given that TOSOH declined to respond to

section D of the Department's questionnaire, we consider it to be an

uncooperative respondent, and have assigned to it a margin based on BIA

under section 776(c) of the Act (see Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rod from Brazil (59 FR 5984, February

9, 1994); Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, etc. from Brazil (58 FR 37091,

July 9, 1993)). Our practice, for uncooperative respondents, is to

apply as BIA the higher of (1) the highest of the rates found for any

firm in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or prior

administrative reviews, or (2) the highest rate found in this review

for any firm (see Final Results of Administrative Review: Antifriction

Bearings (other than Tapered Roller Bearings) from France (58 FR 39729,

39739, July 26, 1993)). Therefore, we used, as BIA, the highest of the

rates found for any firm in the Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value: EMD from Japan (54 FR 8778, March 2, 1989), which is

77.43 percent.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the review period:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

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

TOSOH.................................... 04/1/92-03/31/93 77.43

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

The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for the period of review.

The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the

Customs Service.

Furthermore, the deposit requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the

final results of this administrative review, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act. A cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties

based on margins for the period of April 1, 1991, through March 31,

1992, shall be required on all shipments of subject merchandise from

Japan, as follows:

(1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that

established in the final results of this administrative review;

(2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed

above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific

rate published for the most recent period;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent

period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered

in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be the ``all other'' rate established in the LTFV

investigation (54 FR 8778) of 73.30 percent, as discussed below.

On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade, in Floral Trade

Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (1993), and Federal Mogul

Corporation v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (1993), decided that

once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company it can only be

changed through an administrative review. The Department has determined

that in order to implement these decisions, it is appropriate to

reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation

(or that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a

result of litigation) in proceedings governed by antidumping duty

orders.

In proceedings governed by antidumping findings (i.e., proceedings

originally investigated by the Treasury Department), unless we are able

to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury LTVF

investigation, the Department adopts the ``new shipper'' rate

established in the first final results of administrative review

published by the Department of Commerce (or that rate as amended for

correction of clerical errors or as a result of litigation) as the

``all others'' rate for the purposes of establishing cash deposits in

all current and future administrative reviews.

Because this proceeding was investigated by the Department of

Commerce, it is governed by an antidumping duty order. Therefore, the

``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be 73.30

percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation

(54 FR 8778).

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply

with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written

comments in at least seven copies must be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration no later than July 20, 1994, and

rebuttal briefs, no later than July 27, 1994. The Department will

publish the final results of the administrative review including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief.

We will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested

parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or

rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held on August 1,

1994, at 1:30 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3606, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties

should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate

if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests

should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be

discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will

be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: June 29, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-16607 Filed 7-7-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M