Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-814]

Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of administrative review and

determination not to revoke order in part.

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

SUMMARY: On May 12, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on pure magnesium from Canada and its notice of intent not

to revoke the order with respect to pure magnesium produced by Norsk

Hydro Canada Inc. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment

on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments

received, we have made certain changes for the final results.

This review covers one producer/exporter of pure magnesium to the

United States during the period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997.

The review indicates no dumping margins during the review period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith or Stephanie Hoffman, Import

Administration, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 1, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.

20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 or 482-4198, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting this

administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act

of 1930 (``the Act''), as amended. 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 Act

[[Page 12978]]

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise

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

codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1998).

Background

On May 12, 1998, the Department published the preliminary results

of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from Canada and notice of the intent not to revoke the order

in part (63 FR 26147) (``Preliminary Results''). The producer/exporter

in this review is Norsk Hydro Canada Inc. (``NHCI''). We received

comments and rebuttal comments from NHCI and petitioner, Magnesium

Corporation of America (``Magcorp'') (see Interested Party Comments,

below). A hearing was held on July 29, 1998. The time limit for the

final results of this administrative review was extended on both

September 16, and November 18, 1998.

Subsequent to the Department's decision in Certain Corrosion-

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Determination To Revoke in Part (64 FR 2173,

(January 13, 1999) (``Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada''), NHCI

made a submission commenting upon the position taken by the Department

in that case. Although the deadline for submission of argumentation had

passed, given the length of time (more than six months) that has

elapsed since our formal comment period and in light of the potential

relevance of the Department's determination in Corrosion-Resistant

Steel from Canada, we decided to place NHCI's submission on the record

and take it into account in these final results. We also permitted

petitioner to comment upon Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada and

respondent's submission concerning that determination.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is pure magnesium. Pure

unwrought magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight

and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Granular and

secondary magnesium are excluded from the scope of this review. Pure

magnesium is currently classified under subheading 8104.11.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS''). The HTS item number is provided

for convenience and for customs purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part

The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping

duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act.

While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department

must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a

procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This

regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation

must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has

sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value (``NV'') in

the current review period and that the company will not sell at less

than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the

subject merchandise in each of the three years forming the basis of the

request in commercial quantities; and (3) an agreement to reinstatement

in the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent

to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR

351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department may

revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the company in

question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period

of at least three consecutive years; (2) it is not likely that the

company will in the future sell the subject merchandise at less than

NV; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate reinstatement in

the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to

the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR

351.222(b)(2).

In our Preliminary Results, we determined that ``based on the

evidence on the record, we cannot reasonably conclude that NHCI is not

likely to dump in the future if the order were revoked'' (see

Memorandum to Gary Taverman, dated May 4, 1998).

After consideration of the various comments that were submitted in

response to the preliminary results, we have concluded that we must

determine, as a threshold matter, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222,

whether the company requesting revocation sold the subject merchandise

in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis

of the request. As stated in Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada (at

2189), ``respondents must meet the threshold criterion of three

consecutive years of sales in commercial quantities at not less than

[normal value] in order to be eligible for revocation.''

We determine that NHCI did not sell the subject merchandise in the

United States in commercial quantities in any of the three years cited

by NHCI to support its request for revocation. Specifically, NHCI made

one sale in two of the relevant years and two sales in the other. One

or two sales to the United States during a one year period is not

consistent with NHCI's selling activity prior to the order nor is it

consistent with NHCI's selling activity in the home market (see

Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach, ``Commercial Quantities,'' dated

March 8, 1999, for a discussion of NHCI's selling activity).

Furthermore, we found that, for each year, the volume of merchandise

sold was less than one-half of one percent of the volume of merchandise

sold in the last completed fiscal year prior to the order. These sales

and volume figures are so small, both in absolute terms and in

comparison with the period of investigation, that we cannot reasonably

conclude that the zero margins NHCI received are reflective of the

company's normal commercial experience. More specifically, the

abnormally low level of sales activity does not provide a reasonable

basis for determining that the discipline of the order is no longer

necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we find that NHCI does not

qualify for revocation of the order on pure magnesium under 19 CFR

351.222(b) and (e)(1)(ii).

Comparisons

We calculated export price and normal value based on the same

methodology used in the Preliminary Results, with the following

exceptions:

Based upon comments received from respondent, when determining the

appropriate home market sales to use for comparison purposes the

Department is now matching to identical sales. Also, based upon

comments received from respondent, we have made the necessary changes

such that home market freight charges are being converted

appropriately.

Interested Party Comments

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309, we invited interested parties to

comment on our Preliminary Results. On June 11 and June 16, 1998,

petitioner and respondent submitted case briefs and rebuttal briefs,

respectively. At the request of respondent, a public hearing was held

on July 29, 1998. In addition, we received interested party comments

from Chicago White Metal Casting, Inc., Magnesium Products of America,

Inc., Reynolds Metals Company, and Alcan Aluminum Corporation.

[[Page 12979]]

Comment 1: Commercial Quantities

Petitioner opposes revocation of the antidumping duty order in

part, arguing that respondent has not met the requirements for

revocation. Specifically, petitioner points to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii)

which requires respondents to certify that they have sold the subject

merchandise in commercial quantities to the United States during each

of the three consecutive years. Petitioner argues that NHCI's sales to

the United States during the last three review periods were far too

small to be considered commercial quantities. In petitioner's view,

these were merely token sales whose only purpose was to obtain three

years of zero antidumping margins and qualify for revocation.

Petitioner contends that the concept of commercial quantities

refers to the aggregate volume of sales made by a respondent over the

course of the entire period of review (``POR'') and not to the size of

a single sale used in the calculation of an antidumping margin. In

support for this argument, petitioner claims that there would be no

reason for the requirement of commercial quantities in 19 CFR

351.222(e)(1)(ii) if the term merely referred to the existence of any

sale recognizable as a U.S. sale for calculating an antidumping margin

because there would be no reason for the Department to ask a respondent

to certify a fact that has already been established.

Petitioner further argues that only if a respondent's sales are

sufficiently large will a zero antidumping margin offer any valid

indication that the respondent can continue to export the subject

merchandise to the United States at normal prices if the antidumping

duty order were revoked. As an example, petitioner points to the

Department's decision not to revoke the antidumping duty order in Brass

Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 61 FR

49727 (September 23, 1996) (``German Brass Sheet'') due to the small

volume of shipments. Petitioner also refers to the preamble of the

final regulations in which the Department states that a revocation

based on the absence of dumping is based on the fact that when a

respondent sells in commercial quantities without dumping it has

demonstrated that it will not resume dumping if the order is revoked

(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule (``Final

Regulations''), 62 FR 27296, 27326 (May 19, 1997)).

Respondent argues that the term ``commercial quantities'' refers

not to the number or volume of sales, but to whether any individual

sale was a normal size transaction for the industry. In support for

this argument, respondent points to the proposed regulations in which

the Department states that it will ``establish whether sales were made

in commercial quantities based upon examination of the normal sizes of

sales by the producer/exporter and other producers of subject

merchandise.'' (See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Proposed

Rule (``Proposed Regulations''), 61 FR 7308, 7320 (February 27, 1996)).

Respondent believes that the Department never intended to consider the

aggregate volume of sales made throughout the POR. Rather, NHCI argues,

the concept of commercial quantities was included in the regulations to

ensure that individual sales made during an intervening year were of

sufficient size to permit the Department to conduct a review had one

been requested (as opposed to sales of samples or prototypes and sales

so small that they could not be regarded as bona fide commercial

transactions). Respondent further argues that the Department's

application of the criterion in Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada

inappropriately disqualifies respondents from revocation, even when

reviews are conducted in all three years.

Department's Position: NHCI has requested revocation based on the

absence of dumping. As explained above, to consider such a request we

must determine, as a threshold matter, whether the company requesting

revocation sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in

each of the three years forming the basis of the request. See 19 CFR

351.222(e)(1)(i)-(iii); see also, 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1).

We disagree with NHCI's argument that the commercial quantities

criterion requires only that there be a bona fide commercial

transaction during a given period. As the Department recently

explained, ``sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are an

abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for

determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to

offset dumping'' (see Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada at 2175).

As the record of this case demonstrates, NHCI did not sell the subject

merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in any of the

three years cited by NHCI to support its request for revocation.

Regardless of the bona fide nature of each transaction, these sales, in

the aggregate, are abnormally small in quantity and do not provide the

Department with a reasonable basis to make a revocation determination

(see Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach, ``Commercial Quantities,''

dated March 8, 1999).

We also note that while the regulation requiring sales in

commercial quantities may have developed from the unreviewed

intervening year regulation, its application in all revocation cases

based on an absence of dumping is reasonable and mandated by the

regulations. The application of this requirement to all such cases is

reflected not only in the provision for unreviewed intervening years

(see 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1)), but also in the new general requirement

that parties seeking revocation certify to sales in commercial

quantities in each of the years on which revocation is to be based. See

19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). This requirement ensures that the

Department's revocation determination is based upon a sufficient

breadth of information regarding a company's normal commercial

practice. As in Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada (at 2175), in

this case the number of sales and the total sales volumes are so small,

both in absolute terms and in comparison with the period of

investigation and other review periods, that these sales do not provide

sufficient information on a company's normal commercial experience to

make a revocation decision. If sales are not reflective of a company's

normal commercial activities, they can offer no basis upon which to

make a revocation determination, regardless of whether we conducted a

review or the sales took place in an intervening year.

Comment 2: Sales Drop-Off

Petitioner argues that NHCI's withdrawal from the U.S. market in

the two first review periods after imposition of the antidumping duty

order and the company's insignificant U.S. sales in the subsequent

three review periods demonstrates that NHCI cannot sell commercially

significant quantities without resorting to dumping. Petitioner points

to the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the

Uruguay Round Trade Agreements which states that ``. . . the

cessation of imports after the order, is highly probative of the

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping'' (see H.R. Doc.

316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994) p. 889). Petitioner argues

that although this statement was made in the context of sunset reviews,

it provides guidance on how a respondent would act in the absence of an

antidumping order.

[[Page 12980]]

Respondent states that it made no sales to the United States in the

first and second review periods because of the prohibitively high

antidumping and countervailing duty cash deposit rates. This lack of

sales activity is irrelevant, according to NHCI, since NHCI made sales

to the United States during the third, fourth, and fifth review periods

which constituted a significant increase in sales compared to the first

two review periods.

Moreover, respondent argues that it would be incorrect to use the

original period of investigation as a benchmark for NHCI's normal

commercial behavior because at that time, the company was still in the

process of ramping up production and establishing its customer base.

Respondent explains that after the imposition of the antidumping duty

order, it redirected its marketing strategy toward other export markets

and developed a strong home market for pure magnesium. NHCI, along with

other interested parties, notes that it also increased its production

and sales of alloy magnesium to the extent that by 1997, it had become

primarily a producer of alloy magnesium.

Regarding petitioner's reference to the SAA, respondent argues that

the cited portion deals with sunset and changed circumstances reviews

and, therefore, does not apply to revocation reviews based on the

absence of dumping. In sunset reviews, it is presumed that a drop-off

in exports after the imposition of an antidumping duty order indicates

increased likelihood of continued or resumed dumping if the order were

revoked, but such presumption does not exist in the context of a

revocation based on the absence of dumping, according to respondent.

Department's Position: We have considered the parties' arguments

regarding the post-order sales drop-off in a different context for

these final results, which rely on the absence of sales in commercial

quantities rather than the likelihood of future dumping. Regarding

respondent's claim that it would be incorrect to use the original

period of investigation as a benchmark for NHCI's normal commercial

behavior, we disagree. Assessment of the threshold regulatory

requirement that there be sales in commercial quantities during each of

the three years of review cannot take place in a vacuum. The period of

investigation is a logical and reasonable benchmark for this

assessment, especially given that it is the only time period for which

we have evidence concerning NHCI's commercial behavior with respect to

exports to the United States without the discipline of an antidumping

duty order. While we recognize that NHCI was a relatively new company

at the time of the original investigation, logically this would tend to

support the argument that their sales should have increased, rather

than decreased.

In addition to examining NHCI's commercial activity during the

period of investigation, the Department also examined information

regarding NHCI's sales of pure magnesium to other markets for the three

years in question. Examination of the number and volume of sales made

in these markets further supports our determination that the sales to

the United States were not made in commercial quantities. Moreover,

this very evidence indicates that NHCI has not completely redirected

its market focus toward alloy magnesium but, in fact, maintains

significant pure magnesium sales volumes in other pure magnesium

markets, all of which are markedly smaller and more distant than the

U.S. market.

Comment 3: Alleged Creation of New Revocation Requirement and Deviation

from Normal Practice

NHCI objects to the application by the Department of a new

requirement in its Preliminary Results; namely, that a company must

``participate meaningfully in the U.S. market'' to qualify for

revocation. In support of its argument, NHCI points to the Department's

statements in its Proposed Regulations and in the Notice of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not

to Revoke Order in Part: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of

One Megabyte or Above From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 39809 (July 24,

1997) (``DRAMS from Korea'') where it said that the Final Regulations

did not change the previous revocation requirements. Furthermore,

respondent refers to past cases (e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Italy, 60 FR 10959

(February 28, 1995) and Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel, 57 FR

10008 (March 23, 1992)) in which the Department decided to revoke

antidumping duty orders although the exporters' U.S. sales were small.

Respondent and other interested parties further argue that although

the Department's regulations require a finding that respondent is

unlikely to sell the subject merchandise below normal value in the

future, the Department has generally agreed to revocation based on two

criteria: three consecutive years of zero dumping margins; and an

agreement by respondent to immediate reinstatement of the order if it

resumes dumping in the future. According to NHCI, the Department has

consistently found that these two criteria are dispositive of the ``not

likely'' analysis and that the Department generally does not conduct

such an analysis. Thus, NHCI claims that by not revoking the

antidumping duty order based on these two criteria, the Department has

deviated from its normal practice.

Petitioner argues that, contrary to respondent's contention, there

is no ``normal practice'' of revoking orders based on three years of

zero deposit rates and certain certifications by respondent. Petitioner

states that when determining the likelihood of resumed dumping in past

cases (e.g., German Brass Sheet, Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan, 56 FR 8741 (March 1, 1991), and DRAMs from

Korea), the Department has considered factors other than the

respondent's most recent dumping margins and its certification that it

will not resume dumping.

Department's Position: While the Department's substantive

revocation criteria have not changed, the new regulations added a

threshold criterion for revocation proceedings. Specifically, the

Department now requires the company requesting revocation to have sold

the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three

years forming the basis of the request. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii).

Because the threshold requirement of sales in commercial quantities has

not been met in this case, the analysis in these final results does not

address the likelihood issue.

Comment 4: Failure to Revoke the Order Would be in Conflict With the

WTO Agreement

Respondent argues that a revocation of the order is mandated by the

1994 WTO Antidumping Agreement because Article 11.1 of this agreement

states that an antidumping duty ``shall remain in force only as long as

and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing

injury.'' Respondent supports this position by noting that in DRAMS

from Korea a WTO panel found that the ``continued imposition [of an

antidumping duty] must . . . be essentially dependent on, and therefore

assignable to, a foundation of positive evidence that circumstances

demand it'' (see United States--Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random

Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above From

Korea, WTO Doc. WT/DS99/R (January 29, 1999)) (``DRAMS Panel'').

Respondent further argues that the Department's decision in

[[Page 12981]]

Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada is inconsistent with this panel

finding because it automatically disqualified a respondent from

obtaining revocation without a foundation of positive evidence for

doing so.

Department's Position: The Department's revocation procedures are

fully consistent with Article 11.1. Parties need only demonstrate that

they are no longer dumping while commercially engaged in the U.S.

market over a three year period. The requirement to which respondent

objects merely establishes a reasonable evidentiary threshold. Absent

commercially meaningful sales activity we do not have a sufficient

record to make a reasoned judgement as to revocation. Thus, the

threshold requirement of commercial quantities is necessary,

appropriate, and consistent with our WTO obligations and the DRAMS

Panel decision, because it is an objective condition by which the

Department can make a reasonable determination based on positive

evidence.

Comment 5: Failure To Revoke the Order Would Be Punitive

Respondent argues that failure to revoke would improperly punish

NHCI in light of the Department's determinations that the company has

not been dumping. Moreover, NHCI states that the order and the review

process have imposed a substantial burden on the company.

Department's Position: Application of the regulatory requirements

for revocation is not punitive; rather, these requirements reflect the

Department's view that the actual revocation of an order can only occur

after the collection and analysis of all the relevant information.

While NHCI raised concerns during the proceeding that certain requests

for information were burdensome, we note that NHCI was able to meet all

such requests.

Comment 6: Market Conditions and Trends

Petitioner claims that conditions in the U.S. magnesium market make

dumping more likely because magnesium is a homogenous commodity product

which consumers buy from the seller offering the lowest price.

Petitioner cites to statements by an NHCI official to the effect that

the future magnesium market can be characterized as one of declining

real prices and oversupply. These trends, according to petitioner,

increase the likelihood that NHCI would revert to dumping in order to

boost its sales of the subject merchandise. Petitioner contends that

the magnesium prices quoted by respondent are list prices to which

discounts are applied before the actual transaction price is reached.

In petitioner's view, such list prices have little meaning as

indicators of the actual price level in the market.

Petitioner claims that plans are underway to expand the production

capacity of pure and alloy magnesium, both in Canada and other

countries, and that this increased production will intensify

competition and lead to a continuation of the drop in magnesium prices.

Petitioner also contends that NHCI's new capacity will be utilized for

the production of pure magnesium and it will be directed toward the

U.S. market. Finally, petitioner asserts that it is very likely that

NHCI will have to switch significant production capacity from alloy to

pure magnesium.

Respondent, along with other interested parties, disagrees with

petitioner's description of pricing practices in the magnesium market.

First, respondent says, customers do not always buy from the supplier

offering the lowest price because other factors are also important.

Second, magnesium is not a homogenous product and NHCI competes by

offering high-quality products. Third, respondent disputes petitioner's

allegation that it would have to undercut the prices of other producers

by pointing to the sales it has made in the United States at market

prices in the last three review periods.

According to respondent, U.S. market prices have increased since

the antidumping investigation. While conceding that there have been

moderate adjustments in market prices, respondent argues that in real

terms, magnesium prices increased significantly between 1990 and 1996.

Thus, in respondent's opinion, prices will remain well above the level

where dumping would be inevitable. Respondent further claims that

petitioner has provided the prices of imported Russian and Chinese

magnesium and, according to other interested parties as well, the

pricing practices of these non-Western producers are inappropriate for

comparison to a Western producer like NHCI. Finally, respondent

contends that the price trends provided by petitioner are inconsistent

with those of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Respondent also disputes the notion that there is an oversupply of

pure magnesium, stating that petitioner focuses on the demand/supply

situation in 1996. According to respondent and other interested

parties, the situation changed significantly in 1997 and current supply

conditions are tight with inventories below normal levels. Respondent

further states that demand for pure and alloy magnesium is expected to

increase in both the United States and Canada. Respondent argues that

it is, therefore, not at all certain that a major portion of NHCI's new

capacity will be sold as pure magnesium.

With respect to its expansion plans, respondent maintains that it

has not made a final decision about expanding its magnesium-producing

plant and that petitioner's allegation about a doubling of NHCI's

production capacity, therefore, is wrong. Furthermore, petitioner's

assertion that an expansion by NHCI would lead to a resumption of

dumping is mere speculation, according to respondent.

Respondent dismisses petitioner's allegations regarding other

producers' expansion plans and states that some of these companies have

not yet decided to build new magnesium plants. Finally, respondent

argues, even if all the proposed new plants were built, there is no

basis for petitioner's allegation that this increased competition would

result in dumping because dumping does not occur as a result of lower

prices, but as a result of price discrimination. In this context,

respondent emphasizes that it has signed a certification that it will

not engage in dumping in the future.

Respondent and other interested parties also dispute petitioner's

assertion that NHCI could easily switch its production from alloy to

pure magnesium. Among other things, respondent points to its long-term

supply contracts for alloy as evidence that it cannot easily switch

production to pure magnesium.

Department's Position: Because we have determined that NHCI is not

eligible for revocation, we do not reach the likelihood of future

dumping issue.

Comment 7: Case Precedents Used in the Preliminary Results

Respondent argues that the case precedents on revocation cited by

the Department in its Preliminary Results do not apply to the present

case because the factual situation is different and because the

Department considered mainly negative revocation decisions while it

ignored an affirmative decision.

Department's Position: As explained above, given the Department's

finding that NHCI did not sell in commercial quantities, we do not

reach the likelihood issue.

Comment 8: The Department Can Grant Revocation Over Petitioner's

Objection

Respondent argues that petitioner, Magcorp, cannot purport to

represent the U.S. industry because the

[[Page 12982]]

Department determined in the investigation that petitioner represented

only 22 percent of U.S. magnesium producers. Respondent contends that

Magcorp is merely one producer objecting to the revocation of the order

and that the Department has revoked orders in the past over the

objections of a single producer.

Department's Position: NHCI contested Magcorp's authority to

represent the US industry in its challenge to the original less than

fair value determination but did not prevail. (See Magnesium from

Canada, No. USA-92-1904-03 (August 16, 1993).) Nothing has changed

which would warrant a different conclusion in this proceeding. Because

Magcorp is an interested party, it is entitled to participate and

comment on revocation. Finally, our determination is based on the fact

that NHCI has not met the revocation requirements, not on Magcorp's

objection.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we find that the following margin

exists for the period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)

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

Norsk Hydro Canada Inc............... 8/1/96-7/31/97 0

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

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days

of the date of publication of this notice. The results of this review

shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries

of merchandise covered by the review and for future deposits of

estimated duties for the manufacturers/exporters subject to this

review. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these

final results of this new shipper administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the

reviewed company will be the rate indicated above; (2) for companies

not covered in this review, but covered in previous reviews or the

original less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent

period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a

prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the most recent rate established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor

the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or

the original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all

others'' rate of 21 percent established in the amended final

determination of sales at less than fair value (58 FR 62643 (November

29, 1993)).

These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 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.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

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

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of

the return/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.

We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice

in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: March 8, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-6281 Filed 3-15-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P