68 FR 33920, June 6, 2003
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-122-815]
Redetermination Pursuant to NAFTA Panel Remand: Pure Magnesium
and Alloy Magnesium From Canada
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Redetermination Pursuant to NAFTA Panel Remand: Pure
Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Canada.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Commerce'') has prepared these
results of redetermination pursuant to the decision of the Binational
NAFTA Panel (``Panel'') in Alloy Magnesium and Pure Magnesium from
Canada, USA-CDA-00-1904-07 (October 15, 2002) (``Panel Decision'').
These results pertain to the Department's determination in Alloy
Magnesium and Pure Magnesium from Canada: Final Results of Full Sunset
Reviews, 65 FR 41444 (July 5, 2000) (``Final Results'') that the
revocation of the countervailing duty order on pure magnesium and alloy
magnesium would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of
a countervailable subsidy. The Panel remanded this sunset review to
Commerce with instructions to amend its determination in this case by
removing the reporting of an all others subsidy rate. The Panel
affirmed Commerce's final remand determination on January 21, 2003.
Accordingly, Commerce hereby amends the sunset review in this case by
removing the reporting of an all others subsidy rate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Schlesinger or James P. Maeder,
Jr., Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4968 or (202) 482-3330.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statute and Regulations
This review is conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the
Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are
set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year ( ``Sunset'') Reviews
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20,
1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and in 19 CFR part 351 (2002) in
general. Guidance on
[[Page 33921]]
methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's
conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy
Bulletin 98:3 Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'')
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin,
63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').
Background
The Gouvernement du Quebec (``GOQ'') and Magnesium Corporation of
America (``Magcorp'') challenged certain findings made by Commerce in
its Final Results before the Panel. On March 27, 2002, based on its
findings pursuant to the GOQ and Magcorp's challenge, the Panel upheld
Commerce's determination with respect to certain issues. However, the
Panel remanded to Commerce this sunset review with instructions to
reconsider: (i) The determination to utilize the results of the sixth
review as the subsidy rate to be reported to the ITC; (ii) the basis
for the all others rate; and (iii) the reasons for the failure to
investigate subsidies alleged to have been received by Magnola
Metallurgy, Inc. (``Magnola''). Panel Determination, USA-CDA-00-1904-07
at 31 (Mar. 27, 2002) (``Panel Determination''). The Panel further
instructed Commerce to file its further remand determination within 45
days of the date of the order. On June 10, 2002, Commerce issued the
draft remand results to the Gouvernement du Quebec (``GOQ''), Norsk
Hydro Canada, Inc. (``NHCI''), and domestic interested parties.
Commerce issued the Final Results of Determination Pursuant to
NAFTA Panel Remand of the Sunset Review of the Countervailing Orders on
Pure and Alloy Magnesium from Canada (``Remand Determination'') on June
25, 2002. On July 15, 2002, the GOQ filed the Rule 73(2)(b) Challenge
of the Determination on Remand by the Gouvernement du Quebec (``Rule
73(2)(b) Challenge''). The GOQ's Rule 73(2)(b) Challenge contends that
Commerce improperly concluded that it was ``required'' to report an all
others rate and that the rate selected was improper. U.S. Magnesium LLC
(formerly Magcorp) \1\ also filed a Rule 73(2)(b) Challenge, contesting
Commerce's refusal to investigate alleged subsidies to Magnola.
Commerce responded to the Rule 73(2)(b) Challenges filed by the GOQ and
U.S. Magnesium on August 5, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Magnesium purchased all of the assets of Magcorp on
June 24, 2002, pursuant to an auction approved by U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Robert E. Gerber of the Southern District of New York. See
Motion for Substitution of Party, filed by U.S. Magnesium on July
15, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Panel concluded that Commerce's remand determination with
respect to Magnola is supported by substantial evidence and is in
accordance with law. However, the Panel remanded the matter to Commerce
with instructions to amend its determination by removing the reporting
of an all others subsidy rate. The Panel further instructed Commerce to
file its further remand determination within 45 days of the date of the
order.
Final Results of Review
While we disagree with the Panel's finding with respect to the all
others rate, consistent with the Panel's instructions we hereby amend
our final determination by removing the reporting of an all others
subsidy rate in this case. We determine that revocation of the
countervailing duty order would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the following percentage
weighted-average margins:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted- Average
Manufacturer/producers/exporter margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norsk Hydro Canada Inc. (``Norsk'').......... 1.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice serves as the only 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. Timely 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 violation which is subject to sanction.
This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 2, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-14346 Filed 6-5-03; 8:45 am]