[Federal Register: October 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 59071-59076]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18oc07-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-922, A-583-842]
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Raw
Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case (Taiwan) or Melissa
Blackledge (People's Republic of China), Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-3174 or (202) 482-3518, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Initiation of Investigation
The Petitions
On September 21, 2007, the Department of Commerce (Department)
received petitions concerning imports of raw flexible magnets from the
People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan filed in proper form by
Magnum Magnetics Corporation (the petitioner). See Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties on Raw
Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan
(September 21, 2007) (Petitions). The petitioner is a domestic producer
of raw flexible magnets. On September 26, 2007, the Department issued a
request for additional information and clarification of certain areas
of the general issues and Taiwan-specific portions of the petitions. On
September 27, 2007, the petitioner filed a supplement to the petitions.
See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the
[[Page 59072]]
People's Republic of China and for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (September 27, 2007) (Supplement).
On September 27, 2007, and October 4, 2007, the Department issued
requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas
of the PRC-specific portion of the petition. On October 2, 2007, the
petitioner filed responses to the Department's request for additional
information and clarification of the general issues and Taiwan-specific
portions of the petition. See Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the
People's Republic of China and for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (October 2, 2007) (General Issues
Response 1), Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Raw
Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (October 2, 2007) (Taiwan Response). On
October 4, 2007, October 9, 2007, and October 10, 2007, the petitioner
filed responses to the Department's requests for additional information
and clarification of the PRC-specific portions of the petition. See
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and Countervailing
Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China
(October 4, 2007) (PRC Response 1), Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets
from the People's Republic of China (October 9, 2007) (PRC Response 2),
and Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and
Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's
Republic of China (October 10, 2007) (PRC Response 3). On October 4,
2007, and October 10, 2007, the Department requested additional
information and clarification of certain general issues. On October 10,
2007, and October 11, 2007, the petitioner filed responses to the
Department's request for additional information and clarification of
the general issues. See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's
Republic of China and for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Raw
Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (October 10, 2007) (General Issues
Response 2); see also Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties on Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's
Republic of China and for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Raw
Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (General Issues Response 3). On October 9,
2007, Magnet Technology, a U.S. producer of raw flexible magnets and an
importer of raw flexible magnets from the PRC, submitted a letter
challenging the assertion made by the petitioner that it represents
more than 50 percent of the domestic production of raw flexible
magnets. The petitioner submitted its rebuttal to this challenge to the
industry-support calculation on October 9, 2007.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of raw flexible
magnets from the PRC and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in
the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section
731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the initiation of the antidumping-duty
investigations that the petitioner is requesting. See the
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' section below.
Period of Investigation
Because the petitions were filed on September 21, 2007, the period
of investigation (POI) for the Taiwan investigation is July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007. The POI for the PRC investigation is January 1,
2007, through June 30, 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b).
Scope of the Investigations
The products covered by these investigations are certain flexible
magnet sheeting, strips, and profile shapes. Subject flexible magnet
sheeting, strips, and profile shapes are bonded magnets composed (not
necessarily exclusively) of (i) any one or combination of various
flexible binders (such as polymers or co-polymers, or rubber) and (ii)
a magnetic element, which may consist of a ferrite permanent magnet
material (commonly, strontium or barium ferrite, or a combination of
the two), a metal alloy (such as NdFeB or Alnico), any combination of
the foregoing with each other or any other material, or any other
material capable of being permanently magnetized. Subject flexible
magnet sheeting, strips, and profile shapes are capable of being
permanently magnetized but may be imported in either magnetized or
unmagnetized (including demagnetized) condition. Subject merchandise
may be of any color and may or may not be laminated or bonded with
paper, plastic, or other material, which paper, plastic, or other
material may be of any composition and/or color. Subject merchandise
may be uncoated or may be coated with an adhesive or any other coating
or combination of coatings. Subject merchandise is within the scope of
these investigations whether it is in rolls, coils, sheets, or pieces
and regardless of physical dimensions or packaging, including specialty
packaging such as digital printer cartridges.
Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations is
retail printed flexible magnet sheeting, defined as flexible magnet
sheeting (including individual magnets) that is laminated with paper,
plastic, or other material if such paper, plastic, or other material
bears printed text and/or images, including but not limited to business
cards, calendars, poetry, sports event schedules, business promotions,
decorative motifs, and the like. This exclusion does not apply to such
printed flexible magnet sheeting if the printing concerned consists of
only the following: a trade mark or trade name; country of origin;
border, stripes, or lines; any printing that is removed in the course
of cutting and/or printing magnets for retail sale or other disposition
from the flexible magnet sheeting; manufacturing or use instructions
(e.g., ``print this side up,'' ``this side up,'' ``laminate here'');
printing on adhesive backing (that is, material to be removed in order
to expose adhesive for use, such as application of laminate) or on any
other covering that is removed from the flexible magnet sheeting prior
or subsequent to final printing and before use; non-permanent printing
(that is, printing in a medium that facilitates easy removal,
permitting the flexible magnet sheeting to be re-printed); printing on
the back (magnetic) side; or any combination of the above.
All products meeting the physical description of the subject
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in the
scope of the investigations. The products subject to these
investigations are currently classifiable principally under subheadings
8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided only for
convenience and customs purposes, however, and the written description
of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.
[[Page 59073]]
Comments on Scope of Investigations
We are setting aside a period of time for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage. See, e.g., Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such
comments within 20 calendar days of signature of this notice. Comments
should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit
(CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope
consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample
opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior
to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers who support the petition account for (i) at least 25 percent
of the total production of the domestic like product and (ii) more than
50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by
that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to,
the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that,
if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product, the Department shall (i) poll the industry or
rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by subparagraph (A) or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically valid sampling method if there
is a large number of producers in the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers who produce the domestic
like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes
and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and
information because the Department determines industry support at the
time of initiation. Although this may result in different definitions
of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the
decision of either agency contrary to law. See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240
(CAFC 1989).
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the analysis
of the domestic like product begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition.
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not
offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of
the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted
on the record, we have determined that raw flexible magnets constitute
a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support
in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the
domestic like-product analysis in these cases, see the Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Raw Flexible Magnets from the
People's Republic of China (PRC) (PRC Initiation Checklist) at
Attachment II and the Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan (Taiwan Initiation
Checklist) at Attachment II, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room
B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.
Our review of the data provided in the petitions, supplemental
responses, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support. With
regard to both the PRC and Taiwan, based on information provided in the
petitions, we determine that the domestic producers have met the
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i)
of the Act because the domestic producers who support the petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic
like product. The petitions did not establish support from domestic
producers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production
of the domestic like product, however, and the Department was required
to take further action in order to evaluate industry support. See
section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In this case, the Department was able
to rely on other information, in accordance with section
732(c)(4)(D)(i) of the Act, to determine industry support. See PRC
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II and Taiwan Initiation Checklist
at Attachment II. The Department received opposition to the petitions
from a U.S. producer of the domestic like product which is also an
importer of raw flexible magnets from the PRC. See October 9, 2007,
submission by Magnet Technology; see also PRC Initiation Checklist at
Attachment II and Taiwan Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Based
on information provided in these petitions and other submissions, the
domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic
producers who support the petitions account for more than 50 percent of
the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of
the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions.
Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were filed on
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1)
of the Act. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II and Taiwan
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry in accordance with section 732(c)(4)(A)
of the Act. The petitioner is an interested party as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry
support in favor of the initiation of the antidumping duty
investigations. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II and
Taiwan Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
With regard to the PRC, the petitioner alleges that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like product is being materially
injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the
imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value.
While the imports from Taiwan do not meet the statutory requirement for
cumulation on a volume basis, in its analysis for threat, the
petitioner alleges that imports from Taiwan will imminently account for
more than three percent of all imports of the subject merchandise by
volume and, therefore, they are not negligible.
[[Page 59074]]
See section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also PRC Initiation
Checklist at Attachment III and Taiwan Initiation Checklist at
Attachment III. The petitioner contends that the industry's injured
condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced
production, reduced capacity, a lower capacity-utilization rate, fewer
shipments, underselling, price depression or suppression, lost revenue,
decline in financial performance, reduced employment, and an increase
in import penetration. We have assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See PRC
Initiation Checklist at Attachment III and Taiwan Initiation Checklist
at Attachment III.
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate investigations of imports of raw flexible magnets from Taiwan
and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments
relating to U.S. price and normal value are discussed in greater detail
in the Taiwan Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist. Should
the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under
section 776 of the Act, we will re-examine this information and may
revise the margin calculations if appropriate.
Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: Taiwan
The petitioner calculated normal value using six price quotes,
obtained from a market researcher in Taiwan, from Jasdi Magnet Co.,
Ltd., the Taiwanese producer of the subject merchandise. See Memorandum
entitled ``Raw Flexible Magnets: Telephone Call to Market Research
Firm,'' dated October 11, 2007. Because of the sale and payment terms
described in the price quote, the petitioner made no adjustments for
freight or imputed credit expense. See Taiwan Initiation Checklist.
The petitioner calculated constructed export price (CEP) using two
price offers from the U.S. affiliated reseller of Jasdi Magnet Co.,
Ltd., a Taiwanese producer of raw flexible magnets. The petitioner
deducted amounts for foreign inland-freight costs, international
freight costs, U.S. inland freight costs, U.S. operating expenses (as
indirect selling expenses), inventory carrying costs, and CEP profit.
See Petition, Volume I at Exhibit 30, and Taiwan Response at Attachment
D. Because of the payment terms described in the price quote, the
petitioner made no adjustments for imputed credit expense. See
Petition, Volume I at 47 and Exhibit 32C.
Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: The People's Republic of China
Export Price
The petitioner relied on three sets of price quotes, jointly
accounting for over 40 individual quotes, for raw flexible magnets
manufactured in the PRC and offered for sale in the United States. The
prices quoted were for a wide range of different types and sizes of raw
flexible magnets falling within the scope of this petition. The terms
of delivery for each set of price quotes was different, including
delivered duty paid, cost and freight at a U.S. port, and free on board
(FOB) at a PRC port. To calculate EP, the petitioner, where
appropriate, deducted from the starting price international movement
expenses and U.S. duties. For prices quoted as FOB, the petitioner made
no deductions. To be conservative, the petitioner did not deduct
foreign inland freight charges from any of its U.S. price quotes. See
PRC Initiation Checklist.
Normal Value
Because the Department considers the PRC to be a non-market-economy
country (NME), the petitioner constructed normal value based on the
factors-of-production methodology pursuant to section 773(c) of the
Act. Recently, the Department examined the PRC's market status and
determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. See Memorandum
from the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, Regarding the People's Republic of China Status
as a Non-Market Economy, dated August 30, 2006. (This document is
available online at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-lined-papermemo-08302006.pdf.
) In addition, in two recent
investigations, the Department also determined that the PRC is an NME
country. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
9508 (March 2, 2007), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). In accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status remains in effect
until revoked by the Department. The presumption of the NME status of
the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains
in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation.
Accordingly, the normal value of the product is based appropriately on
factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy country in
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. During the course of this
investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide
relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and
the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
The petitioner asserts that India is the most appropriate surrogate
country for the PRC because India is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise and at a level of economic development
comparable to the PRC. See Petition at 39. Based on the information
provided by the petitioner, we believe that the petitioner's use of
India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating
this investigation. After the initiation of the investigation, we will
solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Also, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will be provided an
opportunity to submit publicly available information to value the
factors of production within 40 calendar days after the date of
publication of the preliminary determination.
The petitioner provided dumping margin calculations using the
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C)
and 19 CFR 351.408. The petitioner calculated normal value based on its
own consumption rates for producing raw flexible magnets. See Petition
at 41 and Exhibit 19. See also PRC Response 2 at Attachments 3 and 4.
The petitioner argues that it is not aware of publicly available
information regarding factor inputs and factor consumption rates of PRC
producers of raw flexible magnets. The petitioner provided affidavits
to support its normal value calculation. See September 26, 2007
supplemental at Attachment A and PRC Response 1 at 8.
For the normal value calculations, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of
the Act, the petitioner used its own factor consumption rates and
surrogate values from a variety of sources, including Indian import
statistics obtained from the World Trade Atlas, the International
Energy Agency, the Department's NME Wage Rate for the PRC, and publicly
available financial statements of two Indian raw flexible magnet
producers to value the factors of production (FOP).
[[Page 59075]]
See Petition at 41-43, and PRC Response 2 at Attachments 2, 3, and 4.
For inputs valued in Indian rupees and not contemporaneous with the
POI, the petitioner used information from the wholesale price indices
(WPI) for India as published in the International Financial Statistics
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for input prices during the
period preceding the POI. See Petition at Exhibit 25. The petitioner
converted the inputs valued in Indian rupees to U.S. dollars based on
the average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POI, as reported on
the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.
See Petition Exhibit 23 and Exhibit 20. For strontium ferrite, a raw
material used in the production of raw flexible magnets, the petitioner
provided a per-unit surrogate value calculated using the actual
consumed quantity and value used by Magnaplast Technologies India Pvt.
Ltd. (Magnaplast) (an Indian producer of subject merchandise) in its
production of raw flexible magnets, because no separate Indian tariff
classification exists for strontium ferrite. See Petition at 42 and
Exhibit 21. For other inputs, e.g., vistenex mw140, chlorinated
polyethylene, ethylene vinyl acetate, and also packing materials, the
petitioner provided surrogate values based on Indian import statistics
from the World Trade Atlas. See Petition at 42 and Exhibit 20, PRC
Response 2 at Attachment 2. With regard to energy (electricity), the
petitioner valued electricity with an Indian electricity rate reported
by the International Energy Agency. See Petition Exhibit 25. Labor was
valued using the expected wage rate for the PRC as provided by the
Department on its website. See Petition at 42 and Exhibit 24.
For the normal value calculations, the petitioner derived the
figures for overhead (FOH), selling, general and administrative (SG&A)
expenses, and profit from the financial ratios of Magnaplast and Ajay
Poly Pvt. Ltd. (Ajay Poly), two Indian producers of merchandise that is
comparable to the domestic like product. The financial statements that
the petitioner provided covered the period of January 1, 2005 through
December 31, 2006. Additionally, the petitioner calculated a simple
average of the two companies' financial ratios for purposes of the
Petition, and used these average ratios in its calculation of normal
value. See Petition Exhibit 26, and PRC Response 2 at Attachment 7. We
did not make any adjustments to normal value as calculated by the
petitioner.
Fair-Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of raw flexible magnets from Taiwan and the PRC
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than
fair value. Based on comparisons of constructed export price to normal
value as discussed above and calculated in accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for raw flexible
magnets from Taiwan range from 25.04 percent to 38.03 percent. Based
upon comparisons of EP to the NV, calculated in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act, the estimated calculated dumping margins for raw
flexible magnets from the PRC range from 26.46 percent to 185.28
percent.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations
Based upon the examination of the Petition on raw flexible magnets
from Taiwan and the PRC, we find that the Petitions meet the
requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating
antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of raw
flexible magnets from Taiwan and the PRC are being, or are likely to
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance
with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205((b)(1), unless
postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than
140 days after the date of this initiation.
Separate Rates
The Department modified the process by which exporters and
producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See
Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate Rates and Combination Rates
Bulletin), available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
The process requires the submission
of a separate-rate status application. Based on our experience in
processing the separate-rate applications in the following antidumping
duty investigations, we have modified the application for this
investigation to make it more administrable and easier for applicants
to complete. See, e.g., Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation:
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of
China, 72 FR 43591, 43594-95 (August 6, 2007) (Tires from the PRC). The
specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in
this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself,
which will be available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html
on the date of publication
of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The separate-rate
application is due no later than December 14, 2007.
Respondent Selection
In prior investigations, it has generally been the Department's
practice to request quantity and value information from all known
exporters identified in the Petition. See, e.g., Tires from the PRC, 72
FR at 43595. For these investigations, because the HTSUS numbers
8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20, as discussed above in the ``Scope of the
Investigation'' section, provide comprehensive coverage of imports of
the subject merchandise, the Department expects to determine
respondents in these investigations based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) data of U.S. imports under HTSUS numbers 8505.19.10
and 8505.19.20 during the POIs.
Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6
explains that, while continuing the practice of assigning separate
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will
now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those
producers that supplied the exporter during the POI. Note, however,
that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers
which supplied subject merchandise to it during the POI. This practice
applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually
calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates.
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination
rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters
and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an
exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in
question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the
POI.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the Petitions has been provided to representatives of
the
[[Page 59076]]
governments of Taiwan and the PRC. We will attempt to provide a copy of
the public version of the Petition to all exporters named in the
Petition, as provided for in 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC.
The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than November 5,
2007, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of raw
flexible magnets from Taiwan and the PRC are materially injuring or
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC
determination for any country will result in the investigation being
terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time
limits.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: October 11, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-20575 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S