Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-840]

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

Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission of

antidumping duty administrative review of manganese metal from the

People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: We have preliminarily determined that sales by China

Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals

Import & Export Associated Corporation have been made below normal

value during the period of review of February 1, 1997, through January

31, 1998. Because we were unable to verify that China Hunan

International Economic Development Corporation reported all of its U.S.

sales during the period of review, we have preliminarily determined to

apply adverse facts available in calculating the dumping margins for

this exporter of the subject merchandise. If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference

between the export price and normal value on all appropriate entries.

We have also determined that the review of China National

Electronics Import and Export Hunan Company and Minmetals Precious &

Rare Minerals Import & Export Corporation should be rescinded.

We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Campbell or Craig Matney, Office

I, Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202) 482-2239 or (202) 482-1778, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), 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). In addition, all references

to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 1998).

Background

On February 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on

manganese metal from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See 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). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on

February 9, 1998, Elkem Metals Company and Kerr-McGee Chemical

Corporation (the petitioners) requested that we conduct an

administrative review of this order. On March 23, 1998, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(c)(3), we published a notice of initiation of this

antidumping duty administrative review. See 63 FR 13837. On November 9,

1998, we published a notice of extension of time limit for the

preliminary results. See 63 FR 60303.

The Department is conducting this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act. The period of review (POR) is

February 1, 1997 through January 31, 1998.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this review is manganese metal, which is

composed principally of manganese, by weight, but also contains some

impurities such as carbon, sulfur, phosphorous, iron and silicon.

Manganese metal contains by weight not less than 95 percent manganese.

All compositions, forms and sizes of manganese metal are included

within the scope of this administrative review, including metal flake,

powder, compressed powder, and fines. The subject merchandise is

currently classifiable under subheadings 8111.00.45.00 and

8111.00.60.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience

and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Partial Rescission

China National Electronics Import and Export Hunan Company (CEIEC)

notified the Department that it had not made any U.S. sales of subject

merchandise during the POR. Entry data provided by the U.S. Customs

Service confirms that there were no POR entries from CEIEC of manganese

metal.

Minmetals Precious & Rare Minerals Import & Export Corporation

(Minmetals) reported one sale which, based on the date of commercial

invoice, was made during the previous POR but which Minmetals believes

would have entered the United States during the POR. However, the U.S.

Customs data, for both the 1995/97 review period and this review

period, indicates that this sale was never entered into the United

States. Moreover, neither Minmetals nor the Department has been able to

identify

[[Page 10987]]

any other customs entries which apparently correspond to this sale.

Thus, even if the Department were to calculate a margin for Minmetals,

there would be no entry on which to assess the resulting duty.

Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice, we are

rescinding this review with respect to Minmetals and CEIEC. See Silicon

Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 46763 (September 5, 1996).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified factor

information provided by Xiang Tan Huan Yu Metallurgical Products Plant

(Huan Yu). We also conducted sales verifications at China Hunan

International Economic Development Corporation (HIED), China

Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals

Import & Export Associated Corporation (CMIECHN/CNIECHN), and

Minmetals. Our verification at each of these companies consisted of

standard verification procedures, including the examination of relevant

sales and financial records and the selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our verification results are detailed

in the verification reports on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU)

in room B-099 of the Department's main building.

Separate Rates

It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of

the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy (NME) countries

a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of

government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports.

To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of

government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department

analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as

amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May

2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Evidence supporting, though not requiring,

a finding of de jure absence of government control over export

activities includes: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations

associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control

of companies. See Sparklers at 20589. A de facto analysis of absence of

government control over exports is based on four factors--whether the

respondent: (1) sets its own export prices independent from the

government and other exporters; (2) can retain the proceeds from its

export sales; (3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts;

and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of

management. See Silicon Carbide at 22587; see also Sparklers at 20589.

In our final LTFV determination, we determined that there was de

jure and de facto absence of government control of each company's

export activities and determined that each company warranted a company-

specific dumping margin. See LTFV Investigation. For this period of

review, HIED, CMIECHN/CNIECHN and Minmetals have responded to the

Department's request for information regarding separate rates. We have

found that the evidence on the record is consistent with the final

determination in the LTFV Investigation and continues to demonstrate an

absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to

these companies' exports, in accordance with the criteria identified in

Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.

Export Price

For those U.S. sales made by CMIECHN/CNIECHN and which we verified,

we calculated an export price, in accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated purchasers

in the United States prior to importation into the United States and

constructed export price treatment was not otherwise indicated.

For these sales, we calculated export price based on the price to

unaffiliated purchasers. We deducted an amount, where appropriate, for

foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance.\1\ The

costs for these items were valued in the surrogate country.

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

\1\ For a detailed discussion of how we derived net export price

and constructed value, see Memorandum to the Case File; Calculations

for the Preliminary Results of Review for CMIECHN/CNIECHN (March 2,

1999), a public version of which is available in room B-099 of the

Department's main building.

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

In addition to these verified sales, U.S. Customs entry data for

the POR indicate that many more shipments of manganese metal listing

CMIECHN/CNIECHN as the manufacturer/exporter were entered into the

United States than the number of CMIECHN/CNIECHN's verified U.S.

sales.\2\ The verified sales represent less than five percent of the

total value of POR entries listing CMIECHN/CNIECHN as the manufacturer/

exporter. Based upon our verification of CMIECHN/CNIECHN's total U.S.

sales, we have preliminarily determined that these additional entries

are not U.S. sales by CMIECHN/CNIECHN for the purposes of this review.

We will, however, continue to examine the circumstances surrounding

these entries identifying CMIECHN/CNIECHN as the exporter. We note that

CMIECHN/CNIECHN has asked the U.S. Customs Service to investigate

potential customs fraud involving entries of manganese metal during the

POR. We will reconsider, in the final results of review, our

preliminary determination that CMIECHN/CNIECHN was not the exporter of

these additional entries in the event that any substantive new

information on the matter, including any potential determination by the

Customs Service regarding alleged customs fraud, becomes available.

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

\2\ The Department initially requested this Customs data to

verify the claims of non-shipment by CEIEC (see Partial Rescission

section above). This request for entry data was also responsive to

concerns expressed by the petitioners that many more shipments of

manganese metal had entered the United States during the POR than

were reported as sales by the respondents.

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

Given our preliminary determination that these additional entries

are not CMIECHN/CNIECHN sales for the purposes of this review, we have

not calculated an export price for these entries. Also, for the reasons

enumerated in the Use of Facts Otherwise Available section below, we

likewise have not calculated an export price for HIED's sales.

Normal Value

1. Non-Market-Economy Status

For companies located in NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the

Act provides that the Department shall determine normal value (NV)

using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the merchandise is

exported from an NME country, and (2) the information does not permit

the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices,

or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.

The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all

previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of

the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country

shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority.

None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment

in this

[[Page 10988]]

review. Furthermore, available information does not permit the

calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices or

constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, we

treated the PRC as a NME country for purposes of this review and

calculated NV by valuing the factors of production in a comparable

market-economy country which is a significant producer of comparable

merchandise.

2. Surrogate-Country Selection

In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section

351.408(b) of our regulations, we preliminarily determine that India is

comparable to the PRC. In addition, India is a significant producer of

comparable merchandise. Therefore, for this review, we have selected

India as the surrogate country and have used publicly available

information relating to India, unless otherwise noted, to value the

various factors of production. (See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from

Jeff May; Non-Market-Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection

(June 23, 1998), a public copy of which is available in the Central

Records Unit.)

3. Factors-of-Production Valuation

For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of

production, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of

production include but are not limited to the following elements: (1)

hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3)

amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative

capital cost, including depreciation. In examining potential surrogate

values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value which

was: (1) an average non-export value; (2) representative of a range of

prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR; (3)

product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive. Where we could not obtain a

POR-representative price for an appropriate surrogate value, we

selected a value in accordance with the remaining criteria mentioned

above and which was the closest in time to the POR. For a more detailed

explanation of the methodology used in calculating various surrogate

values, see Memorandum to the File from Case Team; Calculations for the

Preliminary Results (March 2, 1999). In accordance with this

methodology, we have valued the factors as described below.

We valued manganese ore using a June 1998 export price quote (in

U.S. dollars) from a Brazilian manganese mine for manganese carbonate

ore. Consistent with our methodology used in the first administrative

review of the order on manganese metal from the PRC, this price was

adjusted to reflect the decline in manganese ore world prices since the

POR. See Manganese Metal from the PRC; Final Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12440,

12442 (March 13, 1998). We adjusted this price further to account for

the reported manganese content of the ore used in the PRC manufacture

of the subject merchandise and to account for the differences in

transportation distances.

To value various process chemicals used in the production of

manganese metal, we used prices obtained from the following Indian

sources: Indian Chemical Weekly (February 1997 through November 1997);

the Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports

(February through May 1997) (Import Statistics); price quotes from

Indian chemicals producers, and the 1995 Indian Minerals Yearbook

(IMY). Where necessary, we adjusted these values to reflect inflation

up to the POR using an Indian WPI published by the International

Monetary Fund (IMF). Additionally, we adjusted these values, where

appropriate, to account for differences in chemical content and to

account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and manganese

metal producers.

To value the labor input, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we

used the regression-based estimated wage rate for the PRC as calculated

by the Department.

For selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), factory

overhead, and profit values, we used information from the Reserve Bank

of India Bulletin (January 1997) for the Indian industrial grouping

``Processing and Manufacturing: Metals, Chemicals, and Products

Thereof.'' To value factory overhead, we calculated the ratio of

factory overhead expenses to the cost of materials and energy. Using

the same source, we also calculated the SG&A expense as a percentage of

the cost of materials, energy and factory overhead and profit as a

percentage of the cost of production (i.e., materials, energy, labor,

factory overhead and SG&A).

For most packing materials values, we used per-unit values based on

the data in the Import Statistics. For iron drums, however, we used a

price quote from an Indian manufacturer rather than a value from the

Import Statistics because the quoted price was for the appropriate type

of container used, whereas the Import Statistics were aggregated over

various types of containers. We made further adjustments to account for

freight costs incurred between the PRC supplier and manganese metal

producers.

To value electricity, we used the average rate applicable to large

industrial users throughout India as reported in the 1995 Confederation

of Indian Industries Handbook of Statistics. We adjusted the March 1,

1995, value to reflect inflation up to the POR using the WPI published

by the IMF.

To value rail freight, we relied upon rates quoted by a manganese

mine in India. To value truck freight, we used a price quotation from

an Indian freight provider. Because this quote was for a period

subsequent to the POR, we deflated the value back to the POR using WPI

published by the IMF.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party

(1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department,

(2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form

requested, (3) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping

statute, or (4) provides information that cannot be verified, the

Department shall use, subject to section 782(d), facts available in

reaching the applicable determination. While section 782(d) of the Act

provides certain conditions that must be satisfied before the

Department may disregard all or part of the information submitted by a

respondent, these conditions only apply when the information submitted

can be verified and the interested parties have acted to the best of

their abilities. See section 782(e) of the Act.

1. Application of Facts Available

We preliminarily determine that, in accordance with sections

776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, the use of facts otherwise available,

adverse to the company, is appropriate for HIED because its sales data

could not be verified and because it did not cooperate to the best of

its ability in the course of this review. These reasons are detailed

below.

On August 13, 1998, the Department provided HIED with Customs

Service data showing the POR entries into the United States of

manganese metal from the PRC indicating HIED as the shipper. In an

accompanying letter we noted that these entries differed in material

ways from HIED's reported U.S. sales and requested that HIED comment on

this inconsistency. HIED replied that its reported sales were correct

and could be reconciled with its books. HIED further noted that any

inconsistencies were

[[Page 10989]]

likely due to ``fraudulent schemes'' on the part of other exporters to

export subject merchandise into the United States under the most

favorable circumstances.

The Department subsequently conducted a verification of HIED's

reported sales. During the course of verification, we encountered

numerous inconsistencies and delays, and certain documents were not

available. For instance, HIED officials' explanation of the company's

relationship to its U.S. customer was, in general, incongruous and

incomplete and, at times, entirely contrary to what other company

officials had stated previously. Moreover, although company officials

claimed initially that only one of HIED's departments and one of its

affiliates made sales of manganese metal during the POR, Department

officials conducting the verification (the Verification Team)

subsequently identified accounting records which indicated that at

least one additional business unit may also have been involved in

selling manganese metal. Furthermore, the Verification Team was unable

to verify the total quantity and value of subject merchandise sold by

HIED and its affiliates because certain intermediate accounting records

could not be reconciled to source data or to the financial statements.

Verification of the completeness of HIED's sales reporting was also

seriously hindered by the Verification Team's inability to review

several of the sales and accounting records reportedly maintained by

HIED. In some cases, the source documentation requested by the

Department to verify total sales was reportedly discarded prior to

verification. Company officials offered no explanation as to why they

were unable to retrieve other sales and accounting records, maintained

at the company headquarters, for the majority of HIED's sales

departments. Sales and accounting records for HIED's affiliates,

including those selling manganese metal, were likewise not available

though, according to HIED officials, this was because officials were

unwilling to travel to other locations in the PRC where the documents

were kept.

There were many significant delays in the verification process as a

result of sorting through conflicting statements by officials and of

the difficulty in locating documents which were explicitly requested by

the Department in the verification outline sent prior to the

verification. Despite the fact that the verification was extended--at

the Department's initiative-- for an additional half day, several

important documents were not presented to the Verification Team until

near or at the end of verification, preventing an adequate review of

important data.

Subsequent to verification, the Department received from the

Customs Service supporting documentation (e.g., Customs Form 7501,

commercial invoices, packing lists) filed by the U.S. importer upon

entering the subject merchandise into the United States for several of

the entries which appeared in the U.S. Customs data. The supporting

documentation for several entries listed in the U.S. Customs data

identified HIED clearly as the actual exporter of the subject

merchandise. However, for some of these entries there were no

corresponding sales listed in HIED's U.S. sales listing.

These numerous inconsistencies and delays, and the unavailability

of documentation, taken together, constitute a verification failure

under section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Moreover, based on information

obtained from the Customs Service, we have determined that HIED failed

to report sales it made to the United States. The Department has,

therefore, determined that, because HIED's reported sales data could

not be verified and, generally, the credibility of the information

contained in HIED's questionnaire responses could not be established,

section 776(a) of the Act requires the Department to disregard HIED's

questionnaire responses and apply facts available.

2. Use of Adverse Facts Available

In selecting from among the facts available, section 776(b) of the

Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the

Department finds that a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to

the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See

Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103rd

Cong., 2d sess. 870 at 870 (1994). To examine whether the respondent

``cooperated'' by ``acting to the best of its ability'' under section

776(b) of the Act, the Department considers, inter alia, the accuracy

and completeness of submitted information and whether the respondent

has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. See, e.g.,

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-

53820 (October 16, 1997).

As discussed above, HIED failed to provide much of the

documentation, requested by the Verification Team, necessary to verify

HIED's sales. Moreover, various company officials' statements were

contradictory on several points central to a successful verification.

Furthermore, the Department identified unreported sales of subject

merchandise by HIED which the company knew, or should have known,

should have been properly included in the reported U.S. sales list.

Thus, we have determined that HIED withheld information we requested

and significantly impeded the antidumping proceeding.

We have, therefore, determined that HIED has not acted to the best

of its ability to comply with our requests for information.

Accordingly, consistent with section 776(b) of the Act, we have applied

adverse facts available to this company.

3. Corroboration of Secondary Information

In this review, we are using as adverse facts available the PRC-

wide rate (143.32 percent) determined for non-responding exporters

involved in the LTFV Investigation. This margin represents the highest

margin in the petition, as modified by the Department for the purposes

of initiation. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation:

Manganese Metal from the PRC, 59 FR 61869 (December 2, 1994) (LTFV

Initiation).

Information derived from the petition constitutes secondary

information within the meaning of the SAA. See SAA at 870. Section

776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate secondary information from independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The SAA provides that ``corroborate'' means

that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information

to be used has probative value. The SAA at 870, however, states further

that ``the fact that corroboration may not be practicable in a given

circumstance will not prevent the agencies from applying an adverse

inference.'' In addition, the SAA, at 869, emphasizes that the

Department need not prove that the facts available are the best

alternative information.

To corroborate secondary information, to the extent practicable the

Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the

information to be used. To examine the reliability of margins in the

petition, we examine whether, based on available evidence, those

margins reasonably reflect a level of dumping that may have occurred

during the period of investigation by any firm, including those that

did not provide us with usable information. This generally consists of

examining, to the extent practicable, whether the significant

[[Page 10990]]

elements used to derive the petition margins, or the resulting margins,

are supported by independent sources. With respect to the relevance

aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information

reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that

would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that

the selected margin may not be relevant, the Department will attempt to

find a more appropriate basis for facts available. See, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department

disregarded the highest margin as best information available because

the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business

expense resulting in an unusually high margin).

For the initiation of the investigation, based on an analysis of

the petition and a subsequent supplement to the petition, the

Department modified the dumping margin contained in the petition. See

LTFV Initiation at 61870. In the petition, the U.S. price was based on

price quotations obtained for manganese from the PRC during December

1993 through May 1994. The factors of production were valued, where

possible, using publicly available published information for India.

Where Indian values were not available, the petitioners used data based

on their own costs. For the initiation, however, the Department

disallowed all factors valued by using the petitioners' own costs.

Instead, we recalculated factory overhead and depreciation expenses

using the statistics in the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin (December

1992), a publicly available and independent source used in other

investigations of imports from the PRC. We also recalculated the

valuation of several process chemicals using data from the independent

source Chemical Marketing Reporter. Furthermore, we revalued

electricity costs using World Bank data on electricity rates for

industrial users in Indonesia, an appropriate surrogate country at a

comparable level of economic development to the PRC.

We find, therefore, for the purpose of these preliminary results

that the PRC-wide margin established in the LTFV Investigation is

reliable. As there is no information on the record of this review that

demonstrates that the rate selected is not an appropriate adverse facts

available rate for HIED, we determine that this rate has probative

value and, therefore, is an appropriate basis for facts otherwise

available.

Preliminary Results of the Review

We hereby determine that the following weighted-average margins

exist for the period February 1, 1997, through January 31, 1998:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)

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

CMIECHN/CNIECHN............................................ 6.08

HIED....................................................... 143.32

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

Because we are rescinding the review with respect to CEIEC and

Minmetals, the respective company-specific rates for these companies

remain unchanged.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held

approximately 37 days after the publication of this notice. Interested

parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of the

date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments (rebuttal

briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may

be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication. The

Department will issue a notice of final results of this administrative

review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any

such written comments, within 120 days of publication of these

preliminary results.

Assessment and Cash Deposit Rates

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

In order to assess duties on appropriate entries as a result of

this review, we have calculated entry-specific duty assessment rates

based on the ratio of the amount of duty calculated for each of

CMIECHN/CNIECHN's verified sales during the POR to the total entered

value of the corresponding entry. The Department will instruct the

Customs Service to assess these rates only on those entries which

correspond to sales verified by the Department as having been made

directly by CMIECHN/CNIECHN.

As discussed in the Export Price section above, however, the

Customs entry data for the POR indicates that many more shipments of

manganese metal listing CMIECHN/CNIECHN as the manufacturer/exporter

were entered into the United States than the number of POR sales

reported by CMIECHN/CNIECHN. On those entries listing CMIECHN/CNIECHN

as the manufacturer/exporter but for which there are no corresponding

verified sales, the Department will instruct the Customs Service to

assess the PRC-wide rate of 143.32 percent. The Department will

likewise instruct the Customs Service to assess the facts available

rate, also 143.32 percent, on all POR entries from HIED.

Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be

effective upon publication of the 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 HIED and

CMIECHN/CNIECHN, the cash deposit rate will be the rates for these

firms established in the final results of this review; (2) for

Minmetals and CEIEC, which we determined to be entitled to a separate

rate in the LTFV Investigation but which did not have shipments or

entries to the United States during the POR, the rates will continue to

be 5.88 percent and 11.77 percent, respectively (these are the rates

which currently apply to these companies); and (3) for all other PRC

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 143.32 percent. 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 351.402(f) 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.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: March 1, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-5628 Filed 3-5-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P