Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Beryllium Metal and High Beryllium Alloys From Kazakhstan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-834-805]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Beryllium Metal and

High Beryllium Alloys From Kazakhstan

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Grebasch at (202) 482-3773 or

Erik Warga at (202) 482-0922, Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'').

The Petition

On March 14, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')

received a petition filed in proper form by Brush Wellman Inc.

(``petitioner''), a domestic producer of beryllium metal and high

beryllium alloys (``beryllium''). The Department received supplemental

information to the petition on March 28, and March 29, and April 1,

1996.

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioner alleges

that imports of beryllium from Kazakhstan 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, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Petitioner claims that it has standing to file the petition because

it is an interested party, as defined under section 771(9)(C) of the

Act.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act requires the Department to

determine, prior to the initiation of an investigation, that a minimum

percentage of the domestic industry

[[Page 15771]]

supports an antidumping petition. A petition meets these minimum

requirements 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.

A review of the production data provided in the petition and other

information readily available to the Department indicates that

petitioner accounts for more than 50 percent of the total production of

the domestic like product thus meeting the standard of 732(c)(4)(A) and

requiring no further action by the Department pursuant to 732(c)(4)(D).

Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition is supported

by the domestic industry.

Scope of the Investigation

The scope of this investigation is beryllium metal and high

beryllium alloys with a beryllium content equal to or greater than 30

percent by weight, whether in ingot, billet, powder, block, lump,

chunk, blank, or other semifinished form. These are intermediate or

semifinished products that require further machining, casting and/or

fabricating into sheet, extrusions, forgings or other shapes in order

to meet the specifications of the end user. Beryllium and high

beryllium alloys within the scope of this investigation are

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS) 8112.11.6000, 8112.11.3000, 7601.20.9075, and 7601.20.9090.

Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is

dispositive.

Export Price

Petitioner based export price on FAS Customs values reported in

1995 Bureau of Census data for HTS categories 8112.11.3000 (waste and

scrap) and 8112.11.6000 (unwrought beryllium and beryllium powder). For

purposes of this initiation, we have disallowed the data regarding the

importation of waste and scrap because the majority of the shipment in

question was non-subject merchandise.

Normal Value

Petitioner asserts that Kazakhstan is a non-market economy country

(NME) within the meaning of sections 771(18) of the Act. In previous

investigations, the Department has determined that Kazakhstan is an

NME, and in accordance with section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, the

presumption of NME status continues for the initiation of this

investigation. See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan and Ukraine; and Postponement

of Final Determination; Ferrosilicon from the Russian Federation, 58 FR

13050 (March 9, 1993). Accordingly, the normal value of the product

should be based on the producer's factors of production, valued in a

surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act.

In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the

opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of

Kazakhstan's NME status and the granting of separate rates to

individual exporters. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2,

1994).

It is our practice in NME cases to calculate NV based on the

factors of production of those factories that produced the subject

merchandise (in this case, beryllium) sold to the United States during

the period of investigation.

Petitioner based the Kazak producers' factors of production as

defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, labor, energy

and capital cost) for beryllium on petitioner's own usage amounts,

adjusted for known differences in the production processes. In

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, petitioner valued these

factors, where possible, on publicly available published Brazilian

data. Where this data was unavailable, petitioner used other acceptable

sources of information.

Petitioner states that because the per capita GNP of Brazil and

Kazakstan are relatively close, the two countries may be considered

economically comparable. Further, petitioner has stated that while

Brazil does not produce beryllium, it does produce beryl ore, a major

input of beryllium. Based on these factors, petitioner argued that

Brazil is an acceptable surrogate country, in accordance with 773(c)(4)

of the Act, because its level of economic development is comparable to

that of Kazakstan and Brazil is a significant producer of comparable

merchandise.

Petitioner was unable to find data on factory overhead from an

appropriate industry in Brazil; however, petitioner states that the

first half of the production process for beryllium is similar to the

production of uranium from ore. Therefore, petitioner used data for a

Canadian uranium producer from the public record of the antidumping

proceeding involving uranium from Kazakstan and other former USSR

countries (See Antidumping; Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,

Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; Suspension of

Investigations and Amendment of Preliminary Determinations (57 FR

49220, October 30, 1992)) to value overhead. With respect to general

expenses, petitioner was unable to obtain information regarding the

general expenses from any closely related industry (e.g., beryllium or

uranium). Therefore, petitioner has used information on a Brazilian

silicomanganese company from the record of the antidumping duty

proceeding involving silicomanganese from Brazil (Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicomanganese From

Brazil (59 FR 55432, November 7, 1994)) as the only information

reasonably available.

Petitioner based profit incorrectly on the statutory eight percent

minimum contained in the pre-URAA laws. This provision was specifically

deleted from the URAA. Petitioner provided no reasonable grounds for

the Department to assume that a figure of eight percent for profit is

appropriate. Because petitioner has provided no other information, we

have disallowed this figure for purposes of this initiation.

Based on comparisons of EP to the factors of production, the

calculated dumping margin for beryllium from Kazakstan, after

adjustments made by the Department, is 22.83 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by petitioner, there is reason to

believe that imports of beryllium from Kazakstan are being, or are

likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Initiation of Investigation

We have examined the petition on beryllium and have found that it

meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act, including the

requirements concerning allegations of the material injury or threat of

material injury to the domestic producers of a domestic like product by

reason of the complained-of imports, allegedly sold at less than fair

value. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation

to determine whether imports of beryllium from Kazakstan are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value.

Unless extended, we will make our preliminary determination by August

21, 1996.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

[[Page 15772]]

public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives

of the government of Kazakstan. We will attempt to provide a copy of

the public version of the petition to the exporter named in the

petition.

International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section

732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by April 28, 1996, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of beryllium from Kazakstan 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, the investigation will

proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Dated: April 3, 1996.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations.

[FR Doc. 96-8824 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P