NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-122-815]
Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Canada: Final Results
of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews
Friday, September 8, 2000
*54498
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty
administrative reviews.
SUMMARY: On May 4, 2000, the Department of Commerce ("the
Department") published in the Federal Register the preliminary
results of the administrative reviews of the countervailing duty
orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada for
the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998.
Our analysis of the comments received on the preliminary results did
not lead to any changes of the net subsidy rate. Therefore, these final
results are identical to the preliminary results. The final net subsidy
rate for the reviewed company is listed below in the section entitled
"Final Results of Reviews."
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annika O'Hara or Craig
Matney, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1, Group I, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone
(202) 482-3798 or (202) 482-1778, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references
to the provisions of section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ("URAA"), effective
January 1, 1995 ("the Act"). In addition, unless otherwise indicated,
all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351
(1999).
Background
On May 4, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results
of these administrative reviews (see Pure Magnesium and Alloy
Magnesium From Canada: Preliminary Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 25910 (May 4, 2000))
("Preliminary Results"). We received a case brief from the petitioner,
the Magnesium Corporation of America, on June 5, 2000. Norsk
Hydro Canada, Inc. ("NHCI"), the sole producer or exporter of the
subject merchandise for which a review was requested, and the
Government of Que1bec filed rebuttal briefs on June 12, 2000. 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 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 pure and alloy magnesium subject to review is currently
classifiable under items 8104.11.0000 and 8104.19.0000,
respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
("HTSUS"). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the
merchandise subject to the orders are dispositive.
Secondary and granular magnesium are not included in the scope of
these orders. Our reasons for excluding granular magnesium are
summarized in 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 for which we are measuring subsidies is from
January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these
administrative reviews are addressed in the September 1, 2000,
Issues and Decision Memorandum ("Decision Memorandum") from
Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import
Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Attached to this notice as Appendix I is a list of the issues which
parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision
Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues
raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit,
Room B-099
*54499
of the Department. In addition, a complete
version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the
Internet at http://www.enforcement.trade.gov/frn/ under the heading
"Canada." The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the record and comments received, we have
made no changes to the preliminary net subsidy rate.
Final Results of Reviews
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to these
reviews. We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service ("Customs") to
assess countervailing duties as indicated below on all
appropriate entries. For the period January 1, 1998 through
December 31, 1998, we determine the net subsidy rate for the
reviewed company to be as follows:
Net Subsidy Rate
----------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Percent
----------------------------------
Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc ..... 1.38
----------------------------------
The Department will also instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties in the percentage detailed above
on the f.o.b. invoice price 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 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. 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). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all
companies except NHCI will be unchanged by the results of these
reviews.
Accordingly, we will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash
deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent
company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company.
Except for Timminco Limited, which was excluded from the orders in
the original investigations, these rates were established in the first
administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. See Final
Results of the Second Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada, 62
FR 48607 (September 16, 1997).
In addition, for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31,
1998, 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 administrative
protective order ("APO") of their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 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.
These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 1, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Issues Discussed in the Decision Memorandum
I. Methodology and background information
1. Subsidies valuation information
A. Allocation period
A. Discount rates
II. Analysis of programs
1. Program conferring subsidies
A. Article 7 grant from the Que1bec Industrial Development
Corporation ("SDI")
2. Programs determined to be not used
A. St. Lawrence River Environment Technology Development
Program
B. Program for Export Market Development
C. The Export Development Corporation
D. Canada-Que1bec Subsidiary Agreement on the Economic
Development of the Regions of Que1bec
E. Opportunities to Stimulate Technology Programs
F. Development Assistance Program
G. Industrial Feasibility Study Assistance Program
H. Export Promotion Assistance Program
I. Creation of Scientific Jobs in Industries
J. Business Investment Assistance Program
K. Business Financing Program
L. Research and Innovation Activities Program
M. Export Assistance Program
N. Energy Technologies Development Program
O. Transportation Research and Development Assistance Program
3. Program from which NHCI no longer derives a countervailable
benefit
A. Exemption from payment of water bills
III. Analysis of comments
Comment 1: Description of a program as "terminated"
[FR Doc. 00-23128 Filed 9-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
65 FR 54498-01, 2000 WL 1268890 (F.R.)
END OF DOCUMENT