[Federal Register: November 29, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 71137-71140]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29no02-41]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-873]
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 29, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan or Howard Smith, AD/CVD
Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4081, and (202) 482-5193, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute and Regulations
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, as amended (the
Act), by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April
2002).
Final Determination
We determine that ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China
(PRC) is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at
less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act. The
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the Final Determination
of Investigation section of this notice.
Background
On July 8, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary determination of sales at less-than-fair-
value in the antidumping duty investigation of ferrovanadium from the
PRC. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Ferrovanadium from the
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 45088 (July 8, 2002) (Preliminary
Determination). Since the preliminary determination, the following
events have occurred.
[[Page 71138]]
On July 17, 2002, the respondent, Pangang Group International
Economic and Trading Corporation (Pangang), reported for the first time
that one of its affiliates for which it had not reported factors of
production information had produced ferrovanadium during the period of
investigation (POI). However, in its July 17 submission, Pangang noted
that none of the ferrovanadium produced by this company was sold or
exported to the United States during the POI. In response to Pangang's
July 17 submission, on July 19, 2002, the Department issued a
memorandum to the file noting that we require Pangang to report factors
of production only from the factory or factories which produced
ferrovanadium that was sold to customers in the United States during
the POI.
During July 2002, the Department conducted a verification of
Pangang's sales and factors of production information. See Memorandum
from Timothy P. Finn and Karine Gziryan to the File, ``Verification of
Sales and Factors of Production Information Reported By Pangang Group
International Economic & Trading Corporation,'' dated September 24,
2002. On July 15, 2002, Pangang filed a request for a public hearing in
this investigation. However, no hearing was held in this investigation
because Pangang withdrew its request for a hearing on September 30,
2002. Both the petitioners and Pangang filed surrogate value
information and data on August 26, 2002.\1\ On September 5, 2002,
Pangang filed information purportedly rebutting petitioners' August 26
factor value submission. On September 24, 2002, the Department rejected
Pangang's September 5 rebuttal submission as untimely filed factual
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners in this case are the Ferroalloys Association
Vanadium Committee (TFA Vanadium Committee) and its members: Bear
Metallurgical Company, Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Gulf
Chemical & Metallurgical Corporation, U.S. Vanadium Corporation, and
CS Metals of Louisiana LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties filed case and rebuttal briefs on October 1 and October 7,
2002, respectively. Pursuant to the Department's instructions, the
petitioners removed certain untimely filed factual information from
their rebuttal brief and resubmitted it on November 12, 2002.
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers all ferrovanadium regardless
of grade, chemistry, form, shape, or size. Ferrovanadium is an alloy of
iron and vanadium that is used chiefly as an additive in the
manufacture of steel. The merchandise is commercially and
scientifically identified as vanadium. It specifically excludes
vanadium additives other than ferrovanadium, such as nitride vanadium,
vanadium-aluminum master alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium oxides,
vanadium waste and scrap, and vanadium-bearing raw materials such as
slag, boiler residues and fly ash. Merchandise under the following
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers
2850.00.2000, 8112.40.3000, and 8112.40.6000 are specifically excluded.
Ferrovanadium is classified under HTSUS item number 7202.92.00.
Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and Customs
purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this
investigation remains dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The POI is April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum from Holly A.
Kuga to Bernard T. Carreau, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Ferrovanadium from the People's
Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Decision
Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a
complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on
file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main
Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.
The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Non-Market Economy
The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME)
country in all its past antidumping investigations. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People's
Republic of China, 66 FR 50608 (October 4, 2001); Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Folding Gift
Boxes from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 58115 (November 20,
2001). A designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. The
respondent in this investigation has not requested a revocation of the
PRC's NME status. Therefore, we have continued to treat the PRC as a
NME in this investigation. For further details, see the Preliminary
Determination.
Separate Rates
In our Preliminary Determination, we found that the only responding
company, Pangang, met the criteria for the application of separate,
company-specific antidumping duty rates. We have not received any other
information since the preliminary determination which would warrant
reconsideration of our separates rates determination with respect to
this company. For a complete discussion of the Department's
determination that the respondent is entitled to a separate rate, see
the Preliminary Determination.
The PRC-Wide Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that the use of adverse
facts available for the PRC-wide rate was appropriate for other
exporters in the PRC based on our presumption that those respondents
who failed to demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate constitute a
single enterprise under common control by the Chinese government. The
PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under
investigation except for entries from Pangang.
When analyzing the petition for purposes of the initiation, the
Department reviewed all of the data upon which the petitioners relied
in calculating the estimated dumping margin and determined that the
margin in the petition was appropriately calculated and supported by
adequate evidence in accordance with the statutory requirements for
initiation. In order to corroborate the petition margin for purposes of
using it as adverse facts available, we examined the price and cost
information provided in the petition in the context of our preliminary
determination. For further details, see Memorandum from Mark Manning to
Holly A. Kuga, ``Corroboration of Secondary Information,'' dated June
25, 2002. We received no comments on this decision and continue to find
in this final determination that the rate contained in the petition, as
recalculated, has probative value. Since we have received no comments
regarding our decision to apply, as adverse facts available, the PRC-
wide rate to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except
for entries from Pangang, we have
[[Page 71139]]
continued to apply this rate in the final determination. For further
discussion, see Preliminary Determination.
Since the preliminary determination, we have obtained new
information regarding several surrogate values. In order to take into
account the more recent information, we recalculated the petition
margin using, where possible, revised surrogate values to value the
petitioners' consumption rates. As a result of this recalculation, the
PRC-wide rate is, for the final determination, 66.71 percent. See
Memorandum from Mark Manning to the File, ``Corroboration of Secondary
Information,'' dated November 20, 2002.
Surrogate Country
For purposes of the final determination, we continue to find that
South Africa remains the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC. We
received comments from the petitioners in their brief, which are
discussed in the accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. For
further discussion and analysis regarding the surrogate country
selection for the PRC, see the Preliminary Determination.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by the respondent for use in our final
determination. We used standard verification procedures including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original
source documents provided by the respondents. For changes from the
Preliminary Determination as a result of verification, see the Changes
Since the Preliminary Determination section below.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our findings at verification and on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made adjustments to the calculation
methodologies used in the preliminary determination. These adjustments
are listed below and discussed in detail in the (1) Decision
Memorandum, (2) Memorandum from the Team to the File, ``Final Factors
of Production Valuation Memorandum,'' dated November 20, 2002, and (3)
Memorandum from the Team to the File, ``Calculation Memorandum for the
Final Determination,'' dated November 20, 2002.
1. We accepted all changes identified by Pangang in its July 19, 2002,
submission and all minor corrections presented at verification. For our
final calculations, we used the updated consumption rates and factors
of production that incorporate the changes identified in the documents
listed above, submitted by Pangang on August 28, 2002.
2. We reviewed the import data used in the preliminary determination to
calculate surrogate values and removed from our calculations (1) data
from NME countries, (2) data from countries with export subsidies
(i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand), (3) data with
aberrational per-unit values, and (4) data attributed to South Africa
from the South African import statistics. Furthermore, where possible,
we based our surrogate values on data from the months covering the POI.
3. We included in our calculation of normal value certain auxiliary
materials found during verification.
4. We calculated the surrogate value for vanadium slag from South
African export data contemporaneous with the POI obtained from the
World Trade Atlas (WTA), rather than the South African import data
reported by the United Nations which was used for the preliminary
determination.
5. We recalculated the per-unit amount of vanadium slag consumed in the
production process based on the actual chemical content of the
material, rather than the theoretical content as was done in the
preliminary determination.
6. We removed the ``soda'' factor from the production of FeV50 and
FeV80 because we verified that soda was actually consumed in the
production of the intermediate products V2O3 and V2O5.
7. We renamed the ``lime'' factor consumed in the production of V2O3
and V2O5 to ``soda'' and valued this factor with a surrogate value
derived from South African import statistics contemporaneous with the
POI obtained from the WTA for the HTSUS category for disodium
carbonate.
8. We granted Pangang an offset for its sales of V2O3 slag and V2O5
slag and valued these by-products with the same surrogate value used to
value vanadium slag. We adjusted the surrogate value to account for the
difference in the vanadium content.
9. We granted Pangang an offset for its sales of aluminum oxide slag
and valued this by-product with the same surrogate value used to value
vanadium slag. We adjusted the surrogate value to account for the
difference in the vanadium content.
10. We valued iron drums with South African import statistics
contemporaneous with the POI obtained from the WTA, rather than with
South African import data for 2000 reported by the United Nations,
which was used in the preliminary determination.
11. We calculated separate surrogate values for wooden boxes and wooden
pallets from the South African import statistics contemporaneous with
the POI obtained from the WTA. We identified separate HTSUS categories
for wooden boxes and wooden pallets rather than relying solely on the
HTSUS category for wooden pallets as the surrogate value for both
factors as was done in the preliminary determination.
12. We revised our calculation of the surrogate value for natural gas
and used gas prices obtained from the International Energy Agency that
are contemporaneous with the POI rather than prices from a period
before the POI as was done in the preliminary determination.
13. We inflated surrogate values from periods before the POI with
inflator factors derived from producer price index data from South
Africa.
14. We revised the surrogate value for labor and are using the 2000
wage rate for China rather than the 1999 wage rate as was done in the
preliminary determination.
15. We calculated the surrogate value for sulfuric acid from South
African export data contemporaneous with the POI obtained from the WTA
rather than South African import data which was used for the
preliminary determination.
16. We revised our calculation of freight costs for the factors of
production to include the revised distances identified during
verification.
17. We revised our calculation of the net U.S. price to deduct marine
insurance where appropriate.
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are
directing the Customs Service to continue suspension liquidation of
entries of subject merchandise from the PRC that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 8, 2002 (the
date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal
Register). We will instruct the Customs Service to require a cash
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount
by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the
chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain
in effect until further notice.
Final Determination of Investigation
We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins
exist for the period April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001:
[[Page 71140]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pangang Group International Economic & 13.03
Trading Corporation......................
PRC-Wide Rate............................. 66.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise
except for entries from Pangang.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final
determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 days,
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material
injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material
injury, or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding
will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or
canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the
Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs
officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of subject
merchandise entered for consumption on or after the effective date of
the suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order (APO)
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of
their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of 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.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act
Dated: November 20, 2002.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Whether Pangang Group International Economic & Trading
Corporation (Pangang) Should Have Reported Factors of Production for
All of its Production Facilities
Comment 2: Unreported Factors of Production
Comment 3: Whether Pangang Incorrectly Reported the Consumption
Quantity of a Major Input
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Continue to Use South Africa
as the Surrogate Market Economy Country
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Calculate the Surrogate Value
for Vanadium Slag Using World Trade Atlas (WTA) Data or United Nations
Commodity Trade Statistics (UNCTS) Data
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Value Vanadium Slag Using
Actual or Theoretical Consumption Quantities
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Continue to Add Soda
Consumption Quantities to the Reported Factors of Production
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Value Soda as Sodium Hydroxide
or Sodium Carbonate
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Make a Concentration
Adjustment to its Surrogate Value for Ammonium Sulphate
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Allow an Offset for Aluminum
Oxide Slag
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Use Petitioners' Suggested
Methodology to Value Pangang's Vanadium Slag Offset
Comment 12: Whether the Department Should Value the Consumption of Iron
Drums Using WTA Data
Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value
for Wooden Pallets and Wooden Boxes
Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Continue to Value Natural Gas
Using IEA Data
Comment 15: Whether the Department Made a Ministerial Error in
Calculating the Surrogate Value for Water
Comment 16: Whether the Department Should Use the Wholesale Price Index
(WPI) or Producer Price Index (PPI) to Inflate Factor Values
Comment 17: Whether the Department Should Revise its Profit Ratio
Calculation
Comment 18: Whether the Department Should Revise its Labor Rate
Calculation
Comment 19: Whether the Surrogate Value for Sulfuric Acid is Based On
Aberrational Data
Comment 20: Whether the Department Should Include in Normal Value the
Value of the Factors of Production for Grinding Raw Vanadium Slag
Comment 21: Whether to Correct Certain Information Relating to Inland
Freight
Comment 22: Whether to Deduct Marine Insurance in Calculating the Net
Price for One U.S. Sale
[FR Doc. 02-30306 Filed 11-27-02; 8:45 am]