Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determinations: Pure and Alloy Magnesium From the Russian Federation

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-821-805 and A-821-806]

Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value and Postponement of Final Determinations: Pure and Alloy

Magnesium From the Russian Federation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Grebasch or Erik Warga, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

3773 or (202) 482-0922, respectively.

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS: We preliminarily determine that imports of

pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from the Russian Federation are

being, or are 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 are shown in the

``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of these investigations on April 20, 1994, (59

FR 21748, April 26, 1994), the following events have occurred.

On May 16, 1994, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)

notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its preliminary

determinations that there was a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material

injury, by reason of imports of pure and alloy magnesium from the

Russian Federation.

On June 13, 1994, we sent the antidumping questionnaire to the

Embassy of the Russian Federation and the two Russian manufacturers

(which were identified in the petition). (The antidumping questionnaire

was divided into three sections: Section A requesting general

information on each company; section C requesting information on, and a

listing of, U.S. sales made during the period of investigation

(``POI''); and, section D requesting information on the production

process, including specific amounts of each input used in manufacturing

pure or alloy magnesium.) We requested the Embassy's assistance in

forwarding the questionnaire to all exporters and producers of pure or

alloy magnesium from the Russian Federation and submitting complete

questionnaire responses on their behalf.

In addition to sending questionnaires to the Russian Embassy,

during July and August, the Department independently attempted to

identify other possible exporters of pure magnesium and alloy magnesium

from Russia to the United States during the POI based on information

obtained from petitioners, and through examination of PIERS data and

other sources of information. Our efforts consisted of issuing an

August 8, 1994, survey requesting information on exports to the United

States of the subject merchandise; issuing the antidumping

questionnaire (limited to Sections A and C) to trading companies

operating in various European countries (on August 19, September 7, and

September 13, 1994); and a September 15, 1994, follow-up letter to

unresponsive questionnaire recipients.

We sent either the survey, the questionnaire, or both documents to

56 companies, with the following results.

Six companies in the pure magnesium proceeding, AIOC, Gerald

Metals, Hunter Douglas, Interlink, MG Metals, and Razno Alloys; and two

companies in the alloy magnesium proceeding, Gerald Metals and SMW,

provided information in response to Sections A and C of the

questionnaire.

Twenty-two companies in the pure magnesium proceeding and 27

companies in the alloy magnesium proceeding indicated that they did not

sell the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. The

companies that did not export were (a) alloy only: AIOC; HDM;

Interlink; MG Metals; Razno and F&S; (b) pure only: SMW (except for a

small-quantity trial sale) and (c) both pure and alloy: Intreid;

Kemokomplex; Raba Company; Alamet; Compagnie de Mines et Metals;

Expromptorg; Fred Lonner & Co., Inc.; Metal Exchange Corporation;

Minmeta S.A.; Minmetals Canada, Inc.; Scandinavian Steel AB; Stena

Metall Atervinning AB; Sinex AG; Sassoon Metals and Chemicals; IMEX

Consulting Sprl; A&L; Steinweg Handelsveem; A. Hartrodt; C. Steinweg

Handelsveem B.V.; J. Oosterom & Zoom; and Siegfried Kahn AG.

In each of the two proceedings, seven companies indicated that they

were related to companies that had provided information as to whether

or not they had made U.S. sales.

Fifteen companies in the pure magnesium proceeding and 14 companies

in the alloy magnesium proceeding provided either no response or an

inadequate response. The Department received no response from the

following 13 companies in both proceedings: Derek Raphael & Co., Ltd.;

Marco Trading; Wogen Group Ltd.; Alex; Mages; and 8 companies that

cannot be named in this notice because their identities are deemed

business proprietary information. We have designated these 8 companies

as companies ``A'' through ``H'' in the ``Suspension of Liquidation''

section of this notice, below. We will, however, identify them to the

Customs Service for enforcement of these determinations. Additionally,

both F&S (pure only) and W&O Bergmann (both pure and alloy) indicated

that they had made POI sales of subject merchandise to the United

States, but otherwise ignored our requests for information.

Finally, surveys sent to six companies were returned as

undeliverable.

On August 8, 1994, the Department postponed its preliminary

determinations until October 27, 1994 (59 FR 42200, August 17, 1994).

On August 10, 1994, the Department provided interested parties with

the opportunity to submit published, publicly-available information for

the Department to consider when valuing the factor inputs. Petitioners

and respondents submitted information on September 7, 1994.

From July through October 1994, the Department received responses

to questionnaire sections A and C for pure magnesium from AIOC, Gerald

Metals, HDM, Interlink, MG Metals, Razno and SMW. (Note that SMW's

trial sale of pure magnesium were not considered by the Department

because these sales represent an insignificant portion of the total

volume of U.S. sales. Therefore, for the preliminary determination, the

Department has not considered SMW to be an exporter of pure magnesium

and did not calculate a margin for SMW's trial sales of pure

magnesium.)

For alloy magnesium the Department received responses to Sections A

and C from Gerald Metals and SMW.

The Department received responses to sections A and D from the

following manufacturers: Berezniki Titanium and Magnesium Works

(Avisma) and SMW.

On September 12, 1994, Avisma and SMW requested that the Russian

Federation be reclassified as a market economy country. They also

contended that, if the Department did not revoke the Russian

Federation's non-market economy (NME) designation, the Department

should determine that the magnesium industry in the Russian Federation

is a market-oriented industry (MOI). (See the ``Foreign Market Value''

section of this notice, below.)

During September and October 1994, the Department requested

clarifications of the submitted questionnaire responses from AIOC,

Avisma, Gerald Metals, HDM, Interlink, MG, Razno, and SMW. Avisma,

Interlink, MG, Razno, and SMW submitted additional response

information. Gerald Metals' and HDM's responses to this supplemental

information request are not due until after the deadline for these

preliminary determinations.

On October 10, 1994, petitioners alleged that critical

circumstances exist with respect to imports of alloy magnesium from the

Russian Federation. The Department accepted this allegation and

requested that Gerald Metals and SMW provide historical information on

shipments of alloy magnesium.

Postponement of Final Determinations

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on October 24, 1994,

Gerald Metals, a reseller accounting for a significant proportion of

the merchandise in these proceedings, requested that, in the event of

affirmative preliminary determinations in these investigations, the

Department postpone the final determinations to 135 days after the date

of publication of the affirmative preliminary determinations. Avisma

and SMW, producers accounting for a significant proportion of

merchandise in these proceedings, made a similar request on October 27,

1994. Therefore, we are postponing the final determinations until the

135th day after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Scopes of Investigation

A. Pure Magnesium

The product covered by this investigation is pure primary magnesium

regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from

the scope of this investigation. Primary magnesium is a metal or alloy

containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by

decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal.

Pure primary magnesium encompasses all products that contain at

least 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as

``ultra-pure'' magnesium), as well as products containing less than

99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight (generally

referred to as ``pure'' magnesium). Products that have the

aforementioned primary magnesium content, but that do not conform to

ASTM specifications or other industry or customer-specific

specifications, are included in the scope of this investigation.

Pure primary magnesium is cast and sold in various physical forms

and sizes, including ingots, slabs, rounds, billets and other shapes.

Excluded from the scope of this investigation are primary magnesium

anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings and powder), and

secondary magnesium.

Granular magnesium, turnings, and powder are currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

subheading 8104.30.00. Magnesium granules and turnings (also referred

to as chips) are produced by grinding and/or crushing primary magnesium

and thus have the same chemistry as primary magnesium. Although not

susceptible to precise measurement because of their irregular shapes,

turnings or chips are typically produced in coarse shapes and have

maximum length of less than 1 inch. Although sometimes produced in

larger sizes, granules are more regularly shaped than turnings or

chips, and have a typical size of 2mm in diameter or smaller.

Powders are also produced from grinding and/or crushing primary

magnesium and have the same chemistry as primary magnesium, but are

even smaller than granules or turnings. Powders are defined by the

Section Notes to Section XV, the section of the HTSUS in which

subheading 8104.30.00 appears, as products of which 90 percent or more

by weight will pass through a sieve having a mesh aperture of 1mm. (See

HTSUS, Section XV, Base Metals and Articles of Base Metals, Note 6(b).)

Accordingly, the exclusion of magnesium turnings, granules and powder

from the scope include products having a maximum physical dimension

(i.e., length or diameter) of 1 inch or less.

The products subject to these investigations are currently

classifiable under subheadings 8104.11.00 and 8104.20.00 of the HTSUS.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

B. Alloy Magnesium

The product covered by this investigation is alloy primary

magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly

excluded from the scope of this investigation. Primary magnesium is a

metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and

produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal.

This investigation covers alloy primary magnesium products which

contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8%, primary magnesium, by

weight. Products with the aforementioned primary magnesium content that

do not conform to ASTM specifications or other industry or customer-

specific specifications are included in the scope of this

investigation. In addition to primary magnesium, ``alloy'' magnesium

generally contains one or more of the following items in amounts less

than the primary magnesium itself: (1) Other elements deliberately

added to the primary magnesium; (2) magnesium scrap or secondary

magnesium; (3) oxidized magnesium; and (4) other elements present as

impurities.

Alloy primary magnesium is cast and sold in various physical forms

and sizes, including ingots, slabs, rounds, billets and other shapes.

Excluded from the scope of this investigation are primary magnesium

anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings and powder), and

secondary magnesium.

Granular magnesium, turnings, and powder are currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

subheading 8104.30.00. Magnesium granules and turnings (also referred

to as chips) are produced by grinding and/or crushing primary magnesium

and thus have the same chemistry as primary magnesium. Although not

susceptible to precise measurement because of their irregular shapes,

turnings or chips are typically produced in coarse shapes and have

maximum length of less than 1 inch. Although sometimes produced in

larger sizes, granules are more regularly shaped than turnings or

chips, and have a typical size of 2mm in diameter or smaller.

Powders are also produced from grinding and/or crushing primary

magnesium and have the same chemistry as primary magnesium, but are

even smaller than granules or turnings. Powders are defined by the

Section Notes to Section XV, the section of the HTSUS in which

subheading 8104.30.00 appears, as products of which 90 percent or more

by weight will pass through a sieve having a mesh aperture of 1mm. (See

HTSUS, Section XV, Base Metals and Articles of Base Metals, Note 6(b).)

Accordingly, the exclusion of magnesium turnings, granules and powder

from the scope include products having a maximum physical dimension

(i.e., length or diameter) of 1 inch or less.

The products subject to these investigations are currently

classifiable under subheadings 8104.19.00 and 8104.20.00 of the HTSUS.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The POI in both proceedings is October 1, 1993, through March 31,

1994.

Fair Value Comparisons

A. Participating Respondents

To determine whether sales to the United States of pure magnesium

by AIOC, Gerald Metals, HDM, Interlink, MG Metals, and Razno, and sales

to the United States of alloy magnesium by Gerald Metals and SMW, were

made at less than fair value, we compared the United States price

(``USP'') to the foreign market value (``FMV''), as specified in the

``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this

notice.

B. Non-participating Respondents

All companies to which a questionnaire was issued are considered

mandatory respondents in these proceedings. We consider those mandatory

respondents that did not respond to the questionnaire to be

uncooperative respondents, and we have based the less-than-fair-value

margin for those companies on the best information available (``BIA'').

For these preliminary determinations, we consider F&S (pure magnesium

only) and W&O Bergmann (both pure and alloy magnesium) to be

uncooperative respondents, as well as: Derek Raphael & Co., Ltd.; Marco

Trading; Wogen Group Ltd.; Alex; Mages; and the eight companies whose

names cannot be disclosed because their identities are deemed business

proprietary information. Accordingly, we have based these companies'

LTFV margins on an uncooperative BIA rate.

F&S's responses to our inquiries indicated sales of pure magnesium

but not sales of alloy magnesium. Therefore, only F&S's sales of pure

magnesium are subject to a BIA deposit rate.

In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-

tiered methodology, whereby the Department normally assigns lower

margins to those respondents that cooperated in an investigation and

margins based on more adverse assumptions for those respondents which

did not cooperate in an investigation. As outlined in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium, 58

FR 37083 (July 9, 1993), when a company refuses to provide the

information requested in the form required, or otherwise significantly

impedes the Department's investigation, it is appropriate for the

Department to assign to that company the higher of (a) the highest

margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of

any respondent in the investigation. Here, since these companies failed

to respond to our questionnaire, we are assigning as BIA to

uncooperative exporters a margin of 64.12 percent for pure magnesium

and 107.89 percent for alloy magnesium. These margins represent the

highest margin in each petition for each product, as recalculated by

the Department for the initiation.

C. All Other Companies

We are basing the LTFV margins for all other companies, including

those companies which reported that they did not sell the subject

merchandise to the United States during the POI, on a simple average of

the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, including rates

based on BIA but excluding zero and de minimis margins, if any.

United States Price

We based USP for AIOC, Interlink, Gerald Metals, MG Metals (where

appropriate), Razno, and SMW on purchase price, in accordance with

section 772(b) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold

directly by the exporters to unrelated parties in the United States

prior to importation into the United States and because exporter's

sales price (``ESP'') methodology was not indicated by other

circumstances.

For Interlink, Gerald Metals, MG Metals, Razno and SMW, we

calculated purchase price based on packed, CIF, delivered, or FOT

warehouse prices to unrelated purchasers in the United States. We made

the following deductions (where appropriate): for Razno and SMW, ocean

freight and marine insurance; for AIOC, Interlink, Gerald Metals, and

MG Metals, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling

charges, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. inland insurance.

We based USP for HDM and, where appropriate, MG Metals, on ESP, in

accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, because the subject

merchandise was sold to the first unrelated purchaser after importation

into the United States.

We calculated exporter's sale price based on packed delivered

prices, where appropriate. For HDM, we made deductions, where

appropriate, for ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight,

U.S. duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling. For MG Metals, we made

deductions for foreign brokerage, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.

duties, inland freight, inland insurance, and U.S. brokerage and

handling.

From each exporter's U.S. price, we deducted foreign inland freight

between the factory and the reported intermediate destination (e.g.,

Rotterdam) as follows: For AIOC, SMW, and Razno, we used reported

distances and transport modes to calculate an appropriate surrogate

factory-to-border freight amount on the basis of surrogate freight

rates in Brazil; for Interlink, Gerald Metals, HDM and MG Metals, we

deducted the per-ton foreign inland freight amount reported in the

petition as best information available because those exporters failed

to report in their questionnaire responses information with respect to

such charges. We made no deduction from USP to account for either

export taxes paid by Russian companies to the Russian government or

commissions paid by Russian companies to other Russian companies

because (a) the actual amounts paid are an internal expense within an

NME country and (b) there is no quantifiable good or service factor for

which a surrogate value can be determined. Finally, we adjusted

reported marine insurance and ocean freight charges for Razno as

follows: a reported figure that appeared to be an extended value (i.e.,

an amount applicable to the entire transaction) was adjusted to reflect

a per-unit amount; for transactions where no figure was reported, we

used as the highest reported non-aberrational per-unit amount.

Foreign Market Value

A. Market Reforms in the Russian Federation

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department

normally uses a factor valuation methodology to calculate foreign

market value when the country involved is an NME country and the

Department determines that it cannot determine foreign market value

based on the respondent's prices or costs. An NME-country respondent

may argue that market-driven prices characterize its particular

industry and, therefore, despite NME status, that foreign market value

should be calculated by using actual home market prices or costs.

In these investigations, the Russian manufacturers, Avisma and SMW,

make such a market-oriented-industry (``MOI'') claim. Alternatively,

the two companies claim that economic conditions now prevalent

throughout Russia warrant revocation of Russia's NME-country status,

effective January 1, 1994.

The Department's analysis with respect to such claims centers

around a government's role in economic activity. Consistent with the

factors described in section 771(18), the Department considers the

extent to which resources are allocated by the market or government,

taking into account government involvement in currency and labor

markets, pricing, and production and investment decisions. Where

resources are not allocated by the market, it would be difficult to

conclude that home market prices or costs should be used to calculate

fair value.

Evidence provided in these proceedings indicates that Russia is in

the process of implementing extensive reforms to achieve its goal of

becoming a market economy. The freeing of most prices in December 1991

and the privatization of most enterprises formerly within the state-

planning system are important steps in moving Russia towards a market

economy.

We cannot conclude, however, based on the information in this

record that Russia should be treated as a market economy for purposes

of the antidumping duty law. The Russian economy, having emerged from a

centrally-planned system, is in a state of transition. Many of the

state controls have been abandoned, but that does not mean that

functioning markets have replaced controls. Because the evidence does

not demonstrate that prices and costs in Russia adequately reflect

market considerations, we cannot at this time alter Russia's

designation as a nonmarket economy.

Information on the record also suggests that the government

continues to be involved in the Russian magnesium sector. For example,

the Russian Federal Committee on Metallurgy, a successor to the

Ministry of Industry (Metallurgy Department), indicated in an official

statement that it controls activity in the magnesium industry in

Russia, noting particularly that it coordinates production, exports,

and prices. Also, although the two producers under investigation have

been privatized, this same statement indicates that the Committee may

be using the remaining government interest in these companies to carry

out its intentions with respect to pricing and production. For these

reasons, we have determined that the prices or costs of producing

magnesium in Russia should not be used to calculate fair value.

B. Surrogate Country Selection

In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, we must, to the

extent possible, value the factors of production in one or more market

economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development

comparable to that of the non-market economy country, and (2) are

significant producers of comparable merchandise. Thus, we have

considered as possible surrogates those countries that are economically

comparable to Russia and that produce identical or comparable

merchandise. Of those countries that we have determined to be

economically comparable, Brazil is the only country that is a

significant producer of the identical merchandise, magnesium. (See

October 21, 1994, Memorandum from the Office of Policy to the file.)

Accordingly, we have based FMV on the values of the appropriate factors

of production as valued in Brazil. We have obtained and relied upon

published, publicly available information, wherever possible.

C. Factors of Production

We calculated FMV based on factors of production reported by the

factories which produced the subject merchandise for the above-

mentioned exporters. The factors used to produce pure and alloy

magnesium include materials, labor, and energy. To calculate FMV, the

reported quantities were multiplied by the appropriate surrogate values

for the different inputs. (For a complete analysis of surrogate values,

see our calculation memorandum.) We then added amounts for general

expenses and profit, the cost of containers and coverings, and other

expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed and

ready for shipment to the United States.

To value the raw materials, we used publicly available information

for Brazil from the United Nations Trade Commodity Statistics (UN Trade

Statistics) for January-December 1992. We did not attempt to adjust raw

material factor values to account for inflation between 1992 and the

POI because the figures were reported in dollars, and we had no

indication as to how exchange rates, currency reforms, and

hyperinflation could properly be taken into account. For those raw

materials for which we were unable to obtain publicly available

information from Brazil, we used data provided in the petition.

To value heavy oil, we used 1993 data for Brazil from the Energy

Information Administration's International Energy Annual. Although this

value for heavy oil is tax-inclusive, it is the only data found for

heavy oil in Brazil.

Natural gas was valued using information from the petition on

prices in Brazil because we could find no other source for prices of

this product.

To value electricity for industrial use, labor, and freight rates

for both truck and rail, we used information reported by the U.S.

Consulate in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

To value factory overhead, we calculated percentages based on

elements of constructed value data reported in the Antidumping

Investigation of Silicomanganese from Brazil (see public version of

respondents' June 17, 1994, submission in that proceeding). We adjusted

the figure to reflect an energy-exclusive overhead percentage.

For selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expense and profit

percentages, we used statutory minimum of 10 percent, of materials,

labor, and factory overhead. For profit we used the statutory minimum

of eight percent of materials, labor, factory overhead, and SG&A

expenses. No surrogate country information reflected percentages for

SG&A and profit that were above the statutory minima.

To value packing materials, we also used information provided in

the UN Trade Statistics for Brazil for January through December 1992.

We added surrogate freight costs for the delivery of inputs and packing

materials to the factories producing pure and alloy magnesium. For SMW,

we used the actual cost for one factor, plastic, because it had been

imported from a market economy country and paid for in convertible

currency.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify

information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final

determinations.

Critical Circumstances

Petitioners allege that critical circumstances exist with respect

to imports of alloy magnesium from the Russian Federation. Under 19 CFR

353.16(a), critical circumstances exist if (1) there is a history of

dumping in the United States or elsewhere of the same class or kind of

merchandise as the merchandise subject to the investigation; or the

importer knew or should have known that the producer or reseller was

selling the merchandise at less than its fair value; and (2) there have

been massive imports of the merchandise over a relatively short period

of time.

In determining whether imports were massive, 19 CFR 353.16(f)(1)

instructs consideration of:

(i) The volume and value of the imports;

(ii) Seasonal trends; and

(iii) The share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports.

Further, 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2) states that imports will not generally

be considered massive unless they have increased by at least 15 percent

over the imports during an immediately preceding period of comparable

duration.

With respect to the question of whether there is a history of

dumping, we consider whether there has been an antidumping order

covering the imports of the investigated product into the United States

or another country. To determine whether the importers of alloy

magnesium from Russia knew, or should have known, that the products

were being sold at less than fair value, we considered the company-

specific preliminary margins in these investigations. We consider

margins of 25 percent or more (when USP is purchase price) and 15

percent (when USP is ESP) sufficient to impute knowledge. See, e.g.,

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina (58 FR 37062, 37078,

July 9, 1993).

For all exporters except Gerald Metals and SMW, the margin

calculated with respect to alloy magnesium exceeds 25 percent. However,

for Gerald Metals and SMW, the company-specific margins do not exceed

25 percent. Accordingly, we must also consider whether there is a

history of dumping in the United States or elsewhere with respect to

alloy magnesium from Russia in order to determine whether critical

circumstances exist with respect to those companies. We are aware of no

outstanding antidumping duty orders with respect to alloy magnesium

from the Russian Federation. For those companies with estimated margins

that exceed 25 percent, we determine that importers knew or should have

known that sales were at LTFV prices.

The Department's official import statistics show that the volume of

Russian alloy magnesium entries during the post-petition period of

April through June 1994 (79.0 metric tons) exceeds that of the January

through March 1994 pre-petition period (31.1 metric tons) by 154

percent. Nothing on the record indicates that this increase observed

was the result of seasonal trends. With respect to share of domestic

consumption, the information available to us at this time does not

allow us to evaluate whether the increase can be accounted for by a

change in domestic consumption

Therefore, we find that imports were massive over a relatively

short period.

Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances

exist with respect to imports of alloy magnesium from the Russian

Federation except with respect to imports of alloy magnesium sold by

Gerald Metals and SMW.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing

the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of pure

magnesium from the Russian Federation (except those that represent

sales by AIOC, Gerald Metals, Hunter Douglas, Interlink, or MG Metals)

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the

date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We are also

directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of

alloy magnesium from the Russian Federation (except those that

represent sales by Gerald Metals or SMW) entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after either (a) the date that is 90

days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal

Register or (b) the date of publication of this notice in the Federal

Register, as appropriate. The Customs Service shall require a cash

deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the

FMV exceeds the USP as shown below. These suspension of liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Consistent with our practice in investigations involving imports

from NME countries, we have, in each of the two proceedings, calculated

a single rate applicable to all exporters in the Russian Federation.

The record in these investigations indicates that all Russian exporters

of magnesium responded to our questionnaire. Although SMW requested a

separate rate, we have not addressed the request because, in each

proceeding, the rate for SMW and all other exporters in Russia is the

same irrespective of whether or not SMW warrants a separate rate.

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

Weighted-average margin

percentages Critical

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter -------------------------- circumstance

Pure Alloy (alloy)

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

AIOC.................................................................... 0.00 \1\107.89 Yes.

Gerald Metals........................................................... .00 .00 No.

Hunter Douglas.......................................................... .00 \1\107.89 Yes.

Interlink............................................................... .00 \1\107.89 Yes.

MG...................................................................... \2\.13 \1\107.89 Yes.

Razno and all Russian Exporters\3\...................................... 5.06

SMW and all Russian Exporters\4\........................................ ........... .00 No.

F&S..................................................................... 64.12 \1\107.89 Yes.

W&O..................................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Derek Raphael & Co., Ltd................................................ 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Marco Trading........................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Wogen Group Ltd......................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Alex.................................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Mages................................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Company A............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Company B............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Company C............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Company D............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Company E............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Company F............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Company G............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

Company H............................................................... 64.12 107.89 Yes.

All others not located in Russia........................................ 60.43 107.89 Yes.

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

1Represents the ``all others rate'' for this product; does not denote a company-specific margin percentage.

2De Minimis.

3Pure Magnesium Only.

4Alloy Magnesium Only.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the

ITC of our determinations. If one or both of our final determinations

are affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days

after the date of these preliminary determinations or 45 days after our

final determinations whether these imports are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

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

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

Secretary for Import Administration no later than February 17, 1995,

and rebuttal briefs, no later than February 24, 1995. In accordance

with 19 CFR 353.38(b), 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

February 28, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce,

Room 1412, 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. If these investigations

proceed normally, we will make our final determinations by the 135th

day after the date of publication of the affirmative preliminary

determinations in the Federal Register.

These determinations is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).

Dated: October 27, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-27436 Filed 11-4-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P