[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42852-42857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20494]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-954, A-201-837]
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of
China and Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terre Keaton Stefanova at (202) 482-
1280 or David Goldberger at (202) 482-4136 (Mexico), AD/CVD Operations,
Office 2; Jerry Huang at (202) 482-4047 or Paul Walker at (202) 482-
0413 (China), AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On July 29, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'')
received petitions concerning imports of certain magnesia carbon bricks
(``magnesia carbon bricks'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') and Mexico filed in proper form by Resco Products, Inc.
(``Petitioner''). See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties: Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of
China, dated July 29, 2009 (``AD PRC Petition''); Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from
Mexico, dated July 29, 2009 (``AD Mexico Petition'')(collectively, the
``Petitions''). On August 4 and 12, 2009, the Department issued
additional requests for information and clarification of certain areas
of the Petitions. Based on the Department's requests, Petitioner timely
filed additional information pertaining to the Petitions on August 10
and 14, 2009 (hereinafter, ``Supplement to the AD PRC Petition,'' and
``Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition,'' both dated August 10, 2009,
and ``Second Supplement to the AD PRC Petition,'' and ``Second
Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition,''
[[Page 42853]]
both dated August 14, 2009). The period of investigation (``POI'') for
the PRC is January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. The POI for Mexico
is July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ``Act''), Petitioner alleges that imports of magnesia
carbon bricks from the PRC and Mexico 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 Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party, as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty
investigations that Petitioner is requesting the Department to initiate
(see ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions'' section
below).
Scope of Investigations
The products covered by these investigations are magnesia carbon
bricks from the PRC and Mexico. For a full description of the scope of
the investigations, please see the ``Scope of Investigations,'' in
Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with
Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)),
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by September 8, 2009.\1\ Comments
should be addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ September 8, 2009, is the first business day after twenty
calendar days from the signature date of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires
We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of magnesia carbon bricks to be
reported in response to the Department's antidumping questionnaires.
This information will be used to identify the key physical
characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to more
accurately report the relevant factors and costs of production, as well
as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide information or comments that they
believe are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: 1) general product
characteristics; and 2) the product comparison criteria. We note that
it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as
product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on
meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while
there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by
manufacturers to describe magnesia carbon bricks, it may be that only a
select few product characteristics take into account commercially
meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties
may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should
be used in product matching. Generally, the Department attempts to list
the most important physical characteristics first and the least
important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must
receive comments at the above-referenced address by September 8, 2009.
Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by September 15, 2009.
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 or workers 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 or workers 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.
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 and workers 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 (see 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. Although this may result in different definitions
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.
Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd
865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (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 domestic
like product analysis 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, 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 magnesia carbon bricks constitute a
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in
terms
[[Page 42854]]
of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like
product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the PRC (``PRC
Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support
for the Petitions Covering Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the
People's Republic of China and Mexico, and Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico
(``Mexico Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II, Analysis of
Industry Support for the Petitions Covering Certain Magnesia Carbon
Bricks from the People's Republic of China and Mexico, dated
concurrently with this notice and on file in the Central Records Unit
(``CRU''), Room 1117 of the main Department of Commerce building.
In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigations'', in Appendix I of this
notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own 2008
production of the domestic like product, as well as the production of
the two supporters of the Petitions, and compared this to the estimated
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry. See Petitions, at Exhibits 2-4, Supplement to the AD PRC
Petition, Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, dated August 10, 2009,
at 8-12, and Exhibits R2-R-6, Second Supplement to the AD PRC Petition,
and Second Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, dated August 14, 2009,
at 1-2. Petitioner estimated total 2008 production of the domestic like
product based on its own production data, data from the two supporters
of the Petitions, and knowledge of the U.S. industry. See Petitions, at
Exhibits 2-4, Supplement to the AD PRC Petition, Supplement to the AD
Mexico Petition, dated August 10, 2009, at 8-12, and Exhibits R2-R-6,
Second Supplement to the AD PRC Petition, and Second Supplement to the
AD Mexico Petition, dated August 14, 2009, at 1-2; see also PRC
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II, and Mexico Initiation Checklist
at Attachment II.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that Petitioner has established industry support. First, the
Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers)
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling). See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC Initiation
Checklist at Attachment II, and Mexico Initiation Checklist at
Attachment II. Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i)
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the
Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment
II, and Mexico Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) 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 id.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigations
that it is requesting the Department initiate. See id.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
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 (``NV''). In addition, Petitioner
alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depressing
and suppressing effects, increased import penetration, lost sales and
revenue, reduced production, reduced capacity utilization, reduced
shipments, reduced employment, and overall poor financial performance.
We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding
material injury, threat of 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, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Petitions Covering
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China and
Mexico, and Mexico Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Petitions Covering Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's
Republic of China and Mexico.
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 these investigations of imports of magnesia carbon bricks from
the PRC and Mexico. The sources of data for the deductions and
adjustments relating to the U.S. price, the factors of production (for
the PRC) and constructed value (``CV'') (for Mexico) are also discussed
in the country-specific initiation checklists. See PRC Initiation
Checklist and Mexico Initiation Checklist.
U.S. Price
The PRC
For the PRC, Petitioner calculated export price (``EP'') based on
documentation of actual sales and offers for sale obtained from a
confidential source. See PRC Initiation Checklist; see also AD PRC
Petition at Exhibit 11, and Second Supplement to the AD PRC Petition,
dated August 14, 2009, at 4. Petitioner made adjustments for
distributor mark-ups, international freight and U.S. movement expenses.
See PRC Initiation Checklist; see also Second Supplement to the AD PRC
Petition, at Exhibit R-11.
Mexico
For Mexico, Petitioner based U.S. price on POI prices of magnesia
carbon bricks produced by the Mexican manufacturer RHI-Refmex S.A. de
C.V. (``RHI-Refmex''). Petitioner substantiated the U.S. prices used
with affidavits from persons who obtained the information. Petitioner
believes that these prices include selling expenses incurred by RHI-
Refmex's U.S. affiliate but conservatively assumed such expenses to be
zero in its calculation of net U.S. price. Petitioner deducted, where
appropriate, freight expenses (U.S. inland freight), but made no other
adjustments. See Mexico Initiation Checklist; see also AD Mexico
Petition
[[Page 42855]]
at 15, Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at 21 and Exhibits R-8, R-
10 and R-11, and Second Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at 3.
Normal Value
The PRC
Petitioner states that the PRC is a non-market economy (``NME'')
country and no determination to the contrary has been made by the
Department. See AD PRC Petition, at 14. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in
effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status
for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore,
remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation.
Accordingly, the NV of the product for the PRC investigation is
appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate
market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In
the course of the PRC investigation, all parties, including the public,
will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to
the issue of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to
individual exporters.
Petitioner contends that India is the appropriate surrogate country
for the PRC because: 1) it is at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC; and 2) it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise; and 3) information required to calculate unit
factor costs and financial ratios is readily available. See AD PRC
Petition at 14-16, and Exhibit 10. Based on the information provided by
Petitioner, we believe that it is appropriate to use India as a
surrogate country for initiation purposes. After initiation of the
investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit
comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly
available information to value factors of production within 40 days
after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
Petitioner calculated the NV and dumping margins using the
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C)
and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner calculated NV based on its own
consumption rates for producing magnesia carbon bricks in 2008. See AD
PRC Petition at 17, and Exhibit 12. In calculating NV, Petitioner based
the quantity of each of the inputs used to manufacture and pack
magnesia carbon bricks in the PRC on its own industry knowledge and
production experience during the POI. See AD PRC Petition at 17, and
Exhibit 12. Petitioner states that the actual usage rates of the
foreign manufacturers of magnesia carbon bricks are not reasonably
available; however, Petitioner notes that to the best of Petitioner's
knowledge, the production of magnesia carbon bricks in China relies on
similar basic manufacturing processes as in the United States. See AD
PRC Petition at 17.
Petitioner determined the consumption quantities of all raw
materials and packing materials based on its own production experience.
See AD PRC Petition at 17, and Exhibit 12. Petitioner valued the
factors of production based on reasonably available, public surrogate
country data, specifically, Indian import statistics from the World
Trade Atlas (``WTA''). See Supplement to the AD PRC Petition, at
Exhibit R-8. Petitioner excluded from these import statistics imports
from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME
countries and from Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand as
the Department has previously excluded prices from these countries
because they maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export
subsidies. See id. In addition, the Petitioner made currency
conversions, where necessary, based on the POI-average rupee/U.S.
dollar exchange rate, as reported on the Department's website. See
Supplement to the AD PRC Petition, at 16 and Exhibit R-8. Petitioner
determined labor costs using the labor consumption, in hours, derived
from its own experience. See AD PRC Petition at Exhibit 12. Petitioner
valued labor costs using the Department's NME Wage Rate for the PRC at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages-051608.html. See Supplement
to the AD PRC Petition, at Exhibit R-8. For purposes of initiation, the
Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are
reasonably available and, thus, acceptable for purposes of initiation.
Petitioner determined electricity costs using the electricity
consumption, in kilowatt hours, derived from its own experience. See AD
PRC Petition at Exhibit 12. Petitioner valued electricity using the
Indian electricity rate reported by the Central Electric Authority of
the Government of India. See Supplement to the AD PRC Petition, at 16
and Exhibit R-8.
Petitioner determined natural gas costs using the natural gas
consumption derived from its own experience. See AD PRC Petition at
Exhibit 12. Petitioner valued natural gas using Indian import
statistics from WTA. See Supplement to the AD PRC Petition, at Exhibit
R-8.
Petitioner based factory overhead, selling, general and
administrative (``SG&A''), and profit on data from IFGL Refractories
Ltd. (``IFGL''), a producer of refractory products, for the fiscal year
April 2007 through March 2008. See AD PRC Petition at Exhibit 13.
Petitioner states that, as a manufacturer of non-subject products
within the same general category of merchandise as magnesia carbon
bricks, IFGL's main operation in India can be considered a reasonable
surrogate. See Supplement to the AD PRC Petition, at 17-18. Therefore,
for purposes of the initiation, the Department finds Petitioner's use
of IFGL's unconsolidated financial ratios appropriate.
Mexico
Petitioner calculated NV for magnesia carbon bricks using CV
because Petitioner was unable to obtain home market or third country
prices. See AD Mexico Petition at 13.
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of
manufacturing (``COM''), SG&A expenses, packing expenses, and profit.
In calculating COM and packing, Petitioner based the quantity of each
of the inputs used to manufacture and pack magnesia carbon bricks in
Mexico on its own production experience during 2008. See AD Mexico
Petition at 14, and Exhibits 9 and 11, Supplement to the AD Mexico
Petition, at Exhibit R-9, and Second Supplement to the AD Mexico
Petition, at Exhibit R-14. Petitioner notes that, to the best of its
knowledge, the magnesia carbon bricks manufacturing process in Mexico
is very similar to its magnesia carbon bricks manufacturing process.
Accordingly, Petitioner states that it is reasonable to estimate the
Mexican producer's usage rates based on its own usage rates experienced
in producing magnesia carbon bricks. Petitioner also states that
certain ``brands'' (i.e., models) of RHI-Refmex's magnesia carbon
bricks are identical or very similar to its corresponding brands in
terms of quantity and type of raw materials used, energy consumed, and
the composition of the finished product. See AD Mexico Petition at 14
and 15, and Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at 14 and Exhibit R-
9.
Petitioner multiplied the usage quantities of the inputs used to
manufacture and pack magnesia carbon bricks by the Mexican values of
those inputs based on publicly available data. See AD Mexico Petition,
at 15 and Exhibit 10, Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at Exhibit
R-8, and
[[Page 42856]]
Second Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at Exhibit R-14.
Raw materials (e.g., magnesite) are significant inputs used in the
production of magnesia carbon bricks. Petitioner determined the
consumption quantities of all raw materials and packing materials based
on its own production experience. See AD Mexico Petition, at 14, and
Exhibits 9 and 11, and Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at Exhibit
R-9. Petitioner valued all raw materials and packing materials using
Mexican import statistics as reflected in the WTA data for the period
from June 2008 through May 2009, the most recent data available.
Petitioner excluded from these import statistics imports from countries
previously determined by the Department to be NME countries and from
India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand, as the
Department has previously excluded prices from these countries because
they maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export
subsidies. See AD Mexico Petition at Exhibit 10, and Supplement to the
AD Mexico Petition, at Exhibit R-8.
Petitioner determined labor costs using the labor consumption in
hours derived from its own experience. Petitioner relied on Mexican
wage rate data available from the Import Administration website at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages to determine the average wage rate in
Mexico. See AD Mexico Petition at 15, and Supplement to the AD Mexico
Petition, at 17.
Petitioner determined the costs of electricity and natural gas
using consumption amounts derived from its own experience. Petitioner
valued electricity using the POI Mexican electricity rates for medium-
sized enterprises reported by the Mexico Secretary of Energy at http://www.sener.gob.mx. Petitioner converted the Mexican electricity rates
into U.S. dollars using the Department's POI exchange rates. Petitioner
valued natural gas using Mexican import statistics as reflected in the
WTA data for the period from June 2008 through May 2009, the most
recent data available. See AD Mexico Petition at Exhibit 10, and
Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at 18 and Exhibit R-8.
To calculate factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit,
Petitioner relied on the financial statements of a Mexican producer of
ceramic products, Grupo Lamosa, S.A.B. de C.V., a company that produces
products in the same general category of merchandise as magnesia carbon
bricks. See Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at Exhibit R-8, and
Second Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at Exhibit R-13. See also
Mexico Initiation Checklist.
Fair-Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of magnesia carbon bricks from the PRC and Mexico
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than
fair value. Based on a comparison of U.S. prices and NV calculated in
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping
margins for magnesia carbon bricks from the PRC range from 112 percent
to 349 percent. See PRC Initiation Checklist. Based on a comparison of
U.S. price and CV calculated in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of
the Act, the estimated dumping margins for magnesia carbon bricks from
Mexico range from 153 percent to 295 percent. See Mexico Initiation
Checklist; see also Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at Exhibit R-
10, and Second Supplement to the AD Mexico Petition, at Exhibit R-14
and R-15.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations
Based upon the examination of the Petitions on magnesia carbon
bricks from the PRC and Mexico, the Department finds that the Petitions
meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are
initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports
of magnesia carbon bricks from the PRC and Mexico 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.
Targeted-Dumping Allegations
On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule
for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the
regulatory provisions governing the targeted- dumping analysis in
antidumping duty investigations, and the corresponding regulation
governing the deadline for targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR
351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing
Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930
(December 10, 2008). The Department stated that ``{w{time} ithdrawal
will allow the Department to exercise the discretion intended by the
statute and, thereby, develop a practice that will allow interested
parties to pursue all statutory avenues of relief in this area.'' See
id. at 74931.
In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party
wishes to make a targeted- dumping allegation in any of these
investigations pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such
allegations are due no later than 45 days before the scheduled date of
the country-specific preliminary determination.
Respondent Selection
The PRC
For this investigation, the Department will request quantity and
value information from all known exporters and producers identified
with complete contact information in the AD PRC Petition. The quantity
and value data received from NME exporters/producers will be used as
the basis to select the mandatory respondents.
The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status. See Circular Welded Austenitic
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26,
2008); Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist
Canvas From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April
28, 2005). The Department will post the quantity and value
questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import
Administration website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html, and a response to the quantity and value questionnaire is
due no later than September 10, 2009. Also, the Department will send
the quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified
in the AD PRC Petition, at Exhibit 9.
Mexico
For this investigation, the Department intends to select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data
for U.S. imports under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'') numbers 6902.10.10.00 and 6902.10.50.00, the two
HTSUS categories most specific to the subject merchandise, during the
POI. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective
Order (``APO'') to all parties with access to information protected by
APO within five days of publication of this Federal Register notice and
make our decision regarding respondent selection within
[[Page 42857]]
20 days of publication of this notice. The Department invites comments
regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within ten days of
publication of this Federal Register notice.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application.
See our practice, described in Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, dated 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.
Based on our experience in processing the separate-rate applications in
previous 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). 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 will be due 60 days after publication of this initiation
notice. For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status
application and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents,
these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for
consideration for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts
of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents. As noted in the
``Respondent Selection'' section above, the Department requires that
respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value
questionnaire and the separate rate application by the respective
deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.
The quantity and value questionnaire will be available on the
Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of the publication of this initiation notice in
the Federal Register.
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
states:
{w{time} hile 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 period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of
investigation. 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 period of investigation.
See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin at 6 (emphasis
added).
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petitions have been
provided to the representatives of the Governments of the PRC and
Mexico. Because of the large number of producers/exporters identified
in the AD PRC Petition, the Department considers the service of the
public version of the AD PRC Petition to the foreign producers/
exporters satisfied by the delivery of the public version to the
Government of the PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than September 14,
2009, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of magnesia
carbon bricks from the PRC and Mexico are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC
determination with respect to any country will result in the
investigation being terminated for 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: August 18, 2009.
Carole Showers,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
Imports covered by this petition consist of certain chemically
bonded (resin or pitch), magnesia carbon bricks with a magnesia
component of at least 70 percent magnesia (``MgO'') by weight,
regardless of the source of raw materials for the MgO, with carbon
levels ranging from trace amounts to 30 percent by weight, regardless
of enhancements, (for example, magnesia carbon bricks can be enhanced
with coating, grinding, tar impregnation or coking, high temperature
heat treatments, anti-slip treatments or metal casing) and regardless
of whether or not anti-oxidants are present (for example, antioxidants
can be added to the mix from trace amounts to 15 percent by weight as
various metals, metal alloys, and metal carbides). Certain magnesia
carbon bricks that are the subject of this investigation are currently
classifiable under subheadings 6902.10.10.00, 6902.10.50.00,
6815.91.00.00, and 6815.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. E9-20494 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S