[Federal Register: September 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 175)]
[Page 57394-57395]
[[Page 57394]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 8, 2002, the Department of Commerce published in the
Federal Register the preliminary results and partial rescission of the
administrative reviews of the countervailing duty orders on pure
magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada for the period January 1,
2000, through December 31, 2000. The Department has now completed these
reviews in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. The final results
do not differ from the preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hastings, AD/CVD Enforcement,
Group I, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482-3464.
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 of Commerce's (``the
Department's'') regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).
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). The Department published the
preliminary results and partial rescission of these administrative
reviews on May 8, 2002 (see Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From
Canada: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 30874 (May 8, 2002) (``Preliminary
Results'')). No comments were received on the Preliminary Results.
The Magnesium Corporation of America (``Magcorp''), the petitioner
in these reviews, requested reviews of Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc.
(``NHCI''), and Magnola Metallurgy Inc. (``Magnola''). As stated in the
Preliminary Results, we rescinded these reviews as to Magnola.
Accordingly, these reviews cover only NHCI.
On June 24, 2002, we received notification from U.S. Magnesium, LLC
(``U.S. Magnesium'') that it had purchased all of the assets of Magcorp
and its ongoing magnesium business. In response to U.S. Magnesium's
request, we are treating that company as a successor-in-interest to
Magcorp for the purpose of these countervailing duty reviews.
Scope of the Orders
The products covered by these orders are 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 are 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, 2000, through December 31, 2000.
Analysis of Programs
As stated above, there were no comments submitted to the Department
with respect to the Preliminary Results. Therefore, we determine the
following:
I. Program Determined To Confer Countervailable Subsidies
A. Article 7 Grant From the Québec Industrial Development
Corporation (``SDI'')
SDI (Société de Développement Industriel du
Québec) administers development programs on behalf of the
Government of Quebec (``GOQ''). SDI provides assistance under Article 7
of the SDI Act in the form of loans, loan guarantees, grants,
assumptions of costs associated with loans, and equity investments.
This assistance involves projects capable of having a major impact upon
the economy of Québec. Article 7 assistance greater than 2.5
million dollars must be approved by the Council of Ministers and
assistance over 5 million dollars becomes a separate budget item under
Article 7. Assistance provided in such amounts must be of ``special
economic importance and value to the province.'' (See Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determinations: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium
from Canada, 57 FR 30946, 30948 (July 13, 1992) (``Magnesium
Investigation'').)
In 1988, NHCI was awarded a grant under Article 7 to cover a large
percentage of the cost of certain environmental protection equipment.
In the Magnesium Investigation, the Department determined that NHCI
received a disproportionately large share of assistance under Article
7. On this basis, we determined that the Article 7 grant was limited to
a specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or
industries and, therefore, countervailable. In these reviews, neither
the GOQ nor NHCI has provided new information which would warrant
reconsideration of this determination.
In the Magnesium Investigation, the Department found that the
Article 7 assistance received by NHCI constituted a non-recurring grant
because it represented a one-time provision of funds. In the
Preliminary Results of First Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Canada, 61 FR 11186,
11187 (March 19, 1996), we found this determination to be consistent
with the principles enunciated in the Allocation section of the General
Issues Appendix (``GIA'') appended to the Final Countervailing Duty
Determination; Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58 FR 37225, 37226
(July 9, 1993). In the current review, no new information has been
placed on the record that would cause us to depart from this treatment.
Therefore, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.524(b)(2), we have
continued to allocate the benefit of this grant over time. We used our
standard grant methodology as described in 19 C.F.R. 351.524(d) to
calculate the countervailable subsidy. We divided the benefit
attributable to the POR by NHCI's total sales of Canadian-manufactured
products in the POR. On this basis, we determine the
[[Page 57395]]
countervailable subsidy from the Article 7 SDI grant to be 1.59 percent
ad valorem for NHCI.
II. Programs Determined To Be Not Used
We examined the following programs and determine that NHCI did not
apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the POR:
St. Lawrence River Environment Technology Development
Program
Program for Export Market Development
The Export Development Corporation
Canada-Québec Subsidiary Agreement on the Economic
Development of the Regions of Québec
Opportunities to Stimulate Technology Programs
Development Assistance Program
Industrial Feasibility Study Assistance Program
Export Promotion Assistance Program
Creation of Scientific Jobs in Industries
Business Investment Assistance Program
Business Financing Program
Research and Innovation Activities Program
Export Assistance Program
Energy Technologies Development Program
Transportation Research and Development Assistance Program
III. Program From Which NHCI No Longer Receives a Countervailable
Benefit
Exemption from Payment of Water Bills
In the administrative reviews covering calendar year 1997 the
Department found that NHCI's benefits from this program had been
exhausted and NHCI's participation in this program had ended. We also
found that no residual benefits were being provided or received and no
substitute program had been implemented. In our final results, we
stated that therefore, we did not intend to continue to examine this
program in the future (see Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From
Canada: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 64
FR 48805, 48806 (September 8, 1999)). Consistent with this
determination and in the absence of any new allegation, we did not
examine this program in these reviews.
Final Results of Reviews
In these final results, we have determined that no changes to our
analysis in the Preliminary Results are warranted. Therefore, for the
period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, we determine the net
subsidy rate for the reviewed company to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Subsidy Rate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc................... 1.59 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to the Customs Service (``Customs'') within 15 days of
publication of these final results of review. We will direct Customs to
assess the countervailing duties in the above amount on all entries of
subject merchandise produced and exported by NHCI during the review
period.
The Department will also instruct Customs to collect cash deposits
of estimated countervailing duties in the above percentage 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, 2000, through December 31,
2000, 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
orders 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
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 3, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-22994 Filed 9-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P