Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Japan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-806]

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews:

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 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, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482-0922 and (202) 482-0631, respectively.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioners, the Department of

Commerce (``the Department'') has conducted administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide (``EMD'')

from Japan. The reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter of this

merchandise to the United States, Tosoh Corporation (``TOSOH''), during

the periods April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992, April 1, 1992,

through March 31, 1993.

The Department has completed these reviews and has determined that

respondent's dumping margin should be based on best information

available (``BIA'') for the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 reviews. The margin

for this manufacturer/exporter is 77.43 percent for the 1991-1992 and

1992-1993 periods.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 13, 1994, and July 8, 1994, the Department published the

Federal Register notices of the preliminary results of its

administrative reviews for the periods April 1, 1992, through March 31,

1993 (59 FR 17511), and April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992 (59 FR

35096), respectively. The Department gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. We received a

comment from petitioners, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation and Chemetals

Incorporated, on July 20, 1994, relating to the 1992-1993 review. TOSOH

did not comment on either the 1991-1992 review or the 1992-1993 review.

The Department has completed these reviews in accordance with section

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

Scope of Reviews

Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of electrolytic

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

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

merchandise was classifiable under subheading 2820.10.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS 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 in 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).

These reviews cover EMD sales to the United States by one

manufacturer/exporter, TOSOH.

Interested Party Comment

Comment

Petitioners request confirmation in the context of the 1992-1993

review that any subsequent review involving TOSOH's shipments of the

subject merchandise will include an inquiry into the correct basis for

U.S. prices of reviewed transactions. Specifically, petitioners request

that the Department confirm that it will make a determination in a

future review as to whether the price to test against fair value is

TOSOH's price to its customer, Mitsubishi Corporation (``Mitsubishi''),

or the price that Mitsubishi charges to its customer in the United

States.

DOC Position

It is not appropriate for the Department to speculate on the

resolution of issues that are not relevant to the instant proceeding.

Although petitioners argued that Mitsubishi's prices to its customer

should be the basis for U.S. price, this issue did not need to be

addressed in the 1992-1993 proceeding because TOSOH did not

participate. Whether, in subsequent review periods, the Department will

examine TOSOH's relationship with Mitsubishi is a matter to be decided

in those proceedings should the issue be raised.

Final Results of the Reviews

TOSOH declined to respond to section D of the Department's

questionnaire in the 1991-1992 review. TOSOH also did not respond to

any part of the Department's questionnaire in the 1992-1993 review.

Pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, whenever a company refuses to

produce information requested or otherwise significantly impedes an

investigation, the Department will use BIA.

Because TOSOH refused, in both reviews, to respond to the

Department's questionnaire, we consider it to be an uncooperative

respondent. 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 the current

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).

Accordingly, for both reviews, we used as BIA the highest of the

rates found for any firm in the original LTFV investigation: 77.43

percent (See Final Determination of the Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Japan (54 FR 8778, March 2, 1989)).

As a result of these reviews, we determine that the following

margins exist for each review period:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter Time period (percent)

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

TOSOH...................................... 4/1/91-3/31/92 77.43

TOSOH...................................... 4/1/92-3/31/93 77.43

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

The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for each period of

review. Individual differences between United States price and foreign

market value may vary from the percentage stated above. 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 these administrative reviews, as provided by section

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

based on margins for the most recent period of April 1, 1992, through

March 31, 1993, 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 the 1992-1993 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 the 1992-1993 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 the 1992-1993 review, any previous review conducted by the

Department, or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate

will be the ``all other'' rate established in the LTFV investigation of

73.30 percent. See the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan 58 FR 48826, 48833,

(September 20, 1993), for a further discussion of the Department's

practice in setting the all others rate.

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 final 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 these review periods. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of

return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the

regulations and terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation.

These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with

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

Dated: October 5, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-26203 Filed 10-20-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M9