Countervailing duties: Pure and alloy magnesium from— Canada,

[Federal Register: September 8, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 173)]

[Notices]

[Page 48805-48807]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr08se99-33]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-815]

Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Canada: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative reviews.

SUMMARY: On May 7, 1999, the Department of Commerce published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada for the period January 1, 1997, through December 31, 1997. The Department has now completed these reviews in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. For information on the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company, as well as for all non-reviewed companies, see the Final Results of Reviews section of this notice. We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess countervailing duties accordingly.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annika O'Hara or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group I, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3798 or (202) 482-4207, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act''). The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citation to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Background

On August 31, 1992, the Department published in the Federal Register the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada (57 FR 39392).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the reviews of these orders cover those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, these reviews cover only Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. (``NHCI''), the sole producer or exporter of the subject merchandise for which a review was requested. The petitioner in these reviews is the Magnesium Corporation of America. These reviews cover 17 programs.

In the preliminary results of these reviews, the Department invited interested parties to comment on the results (See Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Canada: Preliminary Results of the Sixth Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 24585 (May 7, 1999) (``Preliminary Results'')). However, no case briefs or rebuttal briefs were filedby interested parties. The Department did not conduct a hearing for these reviews because none was requested.

Scope of the Reviews

The products covered by these reviews are shipments of pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada. Pure magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Magnesium alloys contain less than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight with magnesium being the largest metallic element in the alloy by weight, and are sold in various ingot and billet forms and sizes.

The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under items 8104.11.0000 and 8104.19.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for

[[Page 48806]]

convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these reviews is dispositive.

Secondary and granular magnesium are not included in the scope of these orders. Our reasons for excluding granular magnesium are summarized in the Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure and Alloy Magnesium From Canada, 57 FR 6094 (February 20, 1992).

Period of Review

The period of review (``POR'') for which we are measuring subsidies is from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997.

Analysis of Programs

1. Programs Conferring Subsidies

1. Programs Conferring Subsidies A. Exemption from Payment of Water Bills

   In the Preliminary Results, we found that this program conferred a countervailable benefit on the subject merchandise. We also preliminarily determined that the program was terminated during the POR, that no residual benefits were being provided or received, and that no substitute program had been implemented. We have not received any new information or comments which would lead us to change our preliminary findings. On this basis, we determine that the net subsidy rate for this program during the POR is 0.18 percent for NHCI. Moreover, because this program was terminated during the POR, we do not intend to examine it in the future and the cash deposit rate will be zero for this program.

   2. Article 7 Grants from the Quebec Industrial Development Corporation

   In the Preliminary Results, we found that this program conferred a countervailable benefit on the subject merchandise. We have not received any new information or comments which would lead us to change our preliminary findings. On this basis, we determine that the net subsidy rate for this program during the POR is 1.84 percent for NHCI.

2. Programs Found Not to be Used

   In the Preliminary Results, we found that NHCI did not apply for or receive benefits under the following programs during the POR:

   ‹bullet› St. Lawrence River Environment Technology Development Program ‹bullet› Program for Export Market Development ‹bullet› Export Development Corporation ‹bullet› Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on the Economic Development of the Regions of Quebec ‹bullet› Opportunities to Stimulate Technology Programs ‹bullet› Development Assistance Program ‹bullet› Industrial Feasibility Study Assistance Program ‹bullet› Export Promotion Assistance Program ‹bullet› Creation of Scientific Jobs in Industries ‹bullet› Business Investment Assistance Program ‹bullet› Business Financing Program ‹bullet› Research and Innovation Activities Program ‹bullet› Export Assistance Program ‹bullet› Energy Technologies Development Program ‹bullet› Transportation Research and Development Assistance Program.

   We have not received any new information or comments on these programs which would lead us to change our findings from the Preliminary Results.

   Final Results of Reviews

   In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer or exporter subject to these administrative reviews. For the period January 1, 1997, through December 31, 1997, we determine the net subsidy rate for NHCI, the only producer or exporter subject to these reviews, to be 2.02 percent ad valorem. We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'') to assess countervailing duties in this amount for all entries of the subject merchandise produced and/or exported by NHCI during this period. The Department will also instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties (exclusive of the net subsidy rate calculated for the water program; see section I.A. above) at the rate of 1.84 percent of the f.o.b. invoice prices on all shipments of the subject merchandise from NHCI, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these administrative reviews.

   Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country- wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. Consequently, the requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named (see 19 CFR 351.213(b)). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected at the rate previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that company. See Federal- Mogul Corporation and The Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, which parallels 19 CFR 355.22(g), the predecessor to 19 CFR 351.212(c)). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except NHCI are unchanged by the results of these reviews.

   We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies (except for Timminco Limited, which was excluded from the order in the original investigations) at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non- reviewed companies covered by these orders are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding. See Final Results of the Second Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada, 62 FR 48607 (September 16, 1997). These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is completed. In addition, for the period January 1, 1997, through December 31, 1997, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by these orders are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry, except for Timminco Limited (which was excluded from the order in the original investigations).

   This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301. Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

   These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

   [[Page 48807]]

   Dated: August 31, 1999. Richard W. Moreland, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

   [FR Doc. 99-23329Filed9-7-99; 8:45 am]

   BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M