Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-840]

Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Amended

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on manganese metal from the People's

Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: On March 13, 1998, the Department of Commerce published (62 FR

12440) the final results and partial rescission of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on manganese metal from the

People's Republic of China. The review covered the period June 14, 1995

through January 31, 1997. Subsequent to the publication of the final

results, we received comments from both petitioners and respondents

alleging various ministerial errors. After analyzing the comments

submitted, we are amending our final results to correct certain

ministerial errors. This amendment to the final results is published in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Campbell or Cynthia

Thirumalai; Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Group I,

Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

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

Washington, DC 20230; telephone numbers (202) 482-2239 or (202) 482-

4087, respectively.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930

(``the Act''), as amended, are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). Additionally, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are

to 19 CFR 353 (April 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 13, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')

published in the Federal Register the final results and partial

rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order

covering the period of June 14, 1995 through January 31, 1997 on

manganese metal from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See

Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

12440 (March 13, 1998) (``Final Results of Review''). Subsequently, the

following parties submitted ministerial error allegations: Elkem Metals

Company and Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (together comprising the

``petitioners''), and China Hunan International Economic Development

Corporation (``HIED'') and China Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan

Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals Import & Export Associated

Corporation (``CMIECHN/CNIECHN'') (together comprising the

``respondents'').

On April 9, 1998 the petitioners filed a summons with the Court of

International Trade (``CIT''), and in a subsequent complaint dated May

11, 1998 challenged the Department's final results of the

administrative review. The Department, therefore, suspended any action

on the ministerial error allegations until the CIT issued, on November

4, 1998, an order of dismissal of the petitioners' complaint.

A summary of each allegation along with the Department's response

is included below. We are hereby amending our final results, pursuant

to 19 CFR 353.28(c), to reflect the correction of those errors which

are clerical in nature.

Analysis of Comments Received

Allegation 1: The petitioners argue that the Department erred in

its calculation of the value of Factors A and K.\1\ In order to adjust

the factor prices to a period contemporaneous with the period of review

(``POR''), the Department multiplied each surrogate value by the change

in world-traded prices between 1993, the period for which the surrogate

value is quoted, and the Japanese fiscal year 1995. (As explained in

the Final Results of Review, we used as a proxy for world-traded ore

prices the annual contract price in Japan of high-grade manganese ore.)

The petitioners note that the record contains world-traded ore prices

for 1996 as well. The petitioners argue that, because the POR is June

14, 1995 through January 31, 1997, the Department should have used an

average of the 1995 and 1996 world-traded prices, as this would be more

representative of the prices in effect throughout the duration of the

POR.

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

\1\ A key to the naming convention for business proprietary

factors of production is included as Exhibit J of the Memorandum to

the File: Calculations for the Final Results of Review (March 9,

1998) (``Calculation Memorandum''). A public version of this

document is available in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room

B-099.

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

The respondents counter that the petitioners' argument involves a

deliberate choice by the Department about methodology and, therefore,

does not properly fall within the definition of ministerial error. The

respondents further note that the petitioners themselves in their

submission acknowledge that this point is methodological in nature.

Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The

petitioners' argument involves a methodological decision by the

Department and, as such, does not constitute a ministerial error. This

methodology is clearly identified in the Final Results of Review and in

the Calculation Memorandum. Thus, no revision has been made.

Allegation 2: The petitioners argue that the Department's choice of

a surrogate ore from ``Producer X'' for valuing Factor B is inferior to

the petitioners' proposed surrogate from Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores

Ltd. based on a comparison of the manganese-to-iron ratios of the two.

The respondents counter that the petitioners' argument involves a

deliberate choice by the Department about methodology and, therefore,

does not properly fall within the definition of ministerial error.

Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The

Department's choice of any one surrogate value over alternative values

does not represent a ministerial error. The selection of appropriate

surrogate values for manganese ore in this case has been a highly

contentious issue. During the course of the administrative review, the

Department considered all of the arguments presented by the parties, in

favor of and opposed to each ore surrogate alternative. Our reasons for

choosing the ore from ``Producer X'' to value Factor B have been

clearly

[[Page 7625]]

enunciated in the Final Results of Review. Therefore, no revision to

this calculation has been made.

Allegation 3: The petitioners argue that the Department, in its

calculation of the surrogate value for Factor K, has assigned to that

factor an incorrect average manganese content. According to the

petitioners, documents on the file indicate that the correct content is

much lower.

The respondents offer no comment.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. The

Department misinterpreted the reported manganese dioxide content of

Factor K as its manganese content. We have revised this calculation

accordingly.

Allegation 4: The petitioners argue that the Department has

identified incorrectly the mode of transportation used in one of the

shipments of Factor J. According to the petitioners, verified

information on the record indicates that the correct mode is by train

rather than by truck.

The respondents argue the petitioners are wrong because the

Department verified that two modes of transportation are used to supply

Factor J.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. In the

calculation of the weighted-average freight cost for all of the

suppliers of Factor J, the Department inadvertently listed one shipment

as being transported by truck rather than by train. The freight

calculation has therefore been revised to reflect the correct mode of

transportation.

Allegation 5: The petitioners argue that the Department's computed

unit consumption value for Factor O is incorrect based on verified

information contained in the record.

The respondents agree with the petitioners that the Department

erred in its calculation; however, what the respondents argue to be the

correct value is different from that of the petitioners. The

respondents contend that the value for Factor O should be the value

verified by the Department.

Department's Position: We disagree with both the petitioners and

the respondents. We have reexamined our calculation for Factor O and

have confirmed that it is correct. The value put forward by the

respondents is the verified weight of a single unit of Factor O, rather

than the amount of Factor O consumed in the production of one metric

ton of manganese metal (i.e., Factor O unit consumption). Therefore,

the respondents' figure does not represent the unit consumption of

Factor O, unit consumption being the goal of the particular calculation

in question. The difference between our figure and the petitioners'

figure appears to be only the result of rounding numbers in the

intermediate calculations to a different decimal place. Consequently,

no revision to this calculation has been made.

Allegation 6: The petitioners allege that the Department mistakenly

has included a by-product credit in the factors of production of

certain manganese metal powder manufacturers even though the record

indicates that no by-products are generated in the powder production

process.

The respondents counter that, because manganese metal flake is an

input into powder production and the Department did not account for the

by-product in the flake-production stage, it must therefore take it

into account at the powder-producing stage.

Department's Position: We disagree with both the petitioners and

the respondents. The record indicates that a by-product is generated

during production of flake, but not during the production of manganese

metal powder. Accordingly, we have included a by-product credit when

calculating the flake cost of production. However, flake is also used

as an input into powder production. To value the flake input into

powder production, we have used the calculated cost of direct

materials, direct labor, and direct electricity of flake manufacture,

inclusive of the by-product credit assigned to the flake producer.

Therefore, no revision to the calculation is necessary.

Allegation 7: The petitioners note that, in the Department's

weighted-average dumping margin calculation for these final results,

the Department used the U.S. gross unit price, whereas in past

proceedings the Department has used U.S. net unit price.

The respondents counter that the petitioners' point is of a

methodological nature and does not represent a clerical error.

Department's Position: The petitioners are correct that the

Department erred in this calculation. The Department intended to

calculate the dumping margin by dividing the U.S. net total value into

the total amount of duty due. The error was the result of misdirected

cell references in our calculation spreadsheet. The dumping margin

calculation has been revised accordingly.

Allegation 8: The petitioners contend that the Department should

have included adjustments for bank charges and inspection fees.

The respondents counter that the petitioners' point is of a

methodological nature and does not represent a clerical error.

Department's Position: As explained in Comment 13 in the Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal

from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 56045, 56052 (November 6,

1995), and in the Calculation Memorandum, the Department's established

policy in non-market-economy cases is not to make circumstance-of-sale

adjustments. These bank charges and inspection fees are selling

expenses. Therefore, this omission was intentional on the part of the

Department and, as such, does not represent a ministerial error.

Consequently, no revision is necessary.

Allegation 9: The respondents allege that, in its calculation of

the value of Factor B, the Department used the lower of the reported

range of manganese contents rather than the average for the reported

range of the surrogate value.

The petitioners had no comment.

Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The

Department inadvertently used the reported minimum rather than the

reported average content. The value for Factor B has therefore been

recalculated using the reported average manganese content.

Allegation 10: The respondents argue that the Department erred in

its adjustment for the chemical composition of Factor C in that it

divided rather than multiplied the factor price by its chemical

content.

The petitioners counter that the Department's calculation is

correct based on verified information on record.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. We have

reviewed our calculation for the chemical composition of Factor C and

have confirmed it is correct. No revision is necessary.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our analysis of the ministerial error allegations

received, we are amending margins we published in the final results. We

hereby determine the following weighted-average margins exist for the

period June 14, 1995 through January 31, 1997:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

HIED....................................................... 3.28

CMIECHN/CNIECHN............................................ 1.94

CEIEC*..................................................... 11.77

Minmetals*................................................. 5.88

[[Page 7626]]

PRC-wide................................................... 143.32

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

*CEIEC and Minmetals reported that they had no sales to the United

States during the POR. The rate for each of these companies will

therefore remain unchanged from that determined in Notice of Amended

Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Manganese Metal from

the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 4415 (February 6, 1996) (``LTFV

Investigation'').

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between export price (``EP'') and normal value (``NV'') may

vary from the percentages stated above. We have calculated exporter/

importer-specific duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total

amount of duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR

to the total value of subject merchandise entered during the POR. In

order to estimate entered value, we subtracted international movement

expenses (e.g., international freight and marine insurance) from the

gross sales value. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries

of that particular importer made during the POR. The Department will

issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

The following amended cash deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of this notice of amended final results of this

administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise

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

publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1)

for the companies named above that have separate rates and were

reviewed (i.e., HIED and CMIECHN/CNIECHN), the cash deposit rates will

be the rates listed above specifically for those firms; (2) for

companies which established their eligibility for a separate rate in

the LTFV Investigation but were found not to have exported subject

merchandise to the United States during the POR (i.e., CEIEC and

Minmetals), the cash deposit rates continue to be the currently

applicable rates of 11.77% and 5.88%, respectively; (3) for all other

PRC exporters, all of which were found not to be entitled to a separate

rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 143.32%; and (4) for

non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit

rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.

These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication of

the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a 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 has occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility

concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO

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

return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the

regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review is in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22. This amendment to

the final results is published in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Dated: February 8, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-3694 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P