[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1779]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 27, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-307-810]
Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Phthalic
Anhydride from Venezuela
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin M. Heim or Cynthia Thirumalai,
Office of Countervailing Investigations, Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, room B099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3798 or 482-4087,
respectively.
PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION
Case History
Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal
Register (58 FR 60845, November 18, 1993), the following events have
occurred.
On November 23, 1993, we issued a questionnaire to the Government
of Venezuela (``GOV'') in Washington, DC., concerning petitioners'
allegations. On January 5, 1994, we received responses from the GOV and
Oxidaciones Organicas, C.A. (Oxidor).
Scope of Investigations
For purposes of this investigation, phthalic anhydride (``PA'') is
an aromatic synthetic organic chemical usually produced from a primary
petrochemical called orthoxylene, although sometimes it is produced
from naphthalene. PA is predominately used in the production of
plasticizers, unsaturated polyester resins, and alkyd resins, which in
turn are generally used to produce plastics and paints. The subject PA
is produced in two physical forms, molten and flaked.
The PA subject to this investigation is currently classified under
subheading 2917.35.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this investigation is dispositive.
Injury Test
On August 31, 1990, Venezuela became a contracting party to the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Since qualification as a
``country under the Agreement'' under section 701(b)(3) requires a
finding that the GATT does not apply between the United States and the
country from which the subject merchandise is imported, Venezuela is no
longer eligible for treatment as a ``country under the Agreement''
within the meaning of section 701(b)(3). However, because Venezuela is
a GATT contracting party and the merchandise under investigation is
nondutiable, the ITC is required to determine whether, pursuant to
section 303(a)(2), imports of this merchandise from Venezuela
materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On
December 1, 1993, the ITC preliminarily determined that there is a
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is
threatened with material injury by reason of imports of PA from
Venezuela.
Petitioners
Petitioners are Aristech Chemical Corporation, BASF Corporation,
Koppers Industries, Inc. and Stepan Company. Petitioners state that
they represent 75 percent of the domestic phthalic anhydride industry.
Respondents
The Government of Venezuela and Oxidor are respondents. While there
are two producers of PA in Venezuela, Oxidor accounted for over 85
percent of exports to the United States during the POI and, hence, was
selected as the sole respondent.
Analysis of Programs
For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for
which we are measuring bounties or grants, the period of investigation
(``the POI''), is April 1, 1992 to March 30, 1993, which corresponds to
Oxidor's fiscal year.
Consistent with our practice in preliminary determinations, when a
response to an allegation denies the existence of a program, receipt of
benefits under a program, or eligibility of a company or industry under
a program, and the Department has no persuasive evidence showing that
the response is incorrect, we accept the response for purposes of the
preliminary determination. All such responses, however, are subject to
verification. If the response cannot be supported at verification, and
the program is otherwise countervailable, the program will be
considered a bounty or grant in the final determination.
Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our
questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:
I. Program Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Countervailable
Preferential Pricing of Orthoxylene Feedstock
Petitioners alleged that the government-owned petrochemical
company, Petroquimica de Venezuela, C.A. (``Pequiven''), is selling
orthoxylene (an input product to PA) to Venezuelan producers of PA at
preferential prices.
In its response, the GOV stated that, within Venezuela, Pequiven
sells orthoxylene to only two customers, both of which produce PA.
Furthermore, it stated that the prices that Pequiven charges these
companies are tied to international prices for orthoxylene.
In order to determine whether the GOV, through the state-owned
company, Pequiven, provided orthoxylene to PA producers at preferential
prices, we followed the hierarchy for determining benchmark prices as
found in Sec. 355.44(f) of the Department's Proposed Regulations (54 FR
23381, May 31, 1989). The Department's preferred benchmark is the non-
specific price that the government charges to the same or other users
of the same good within the political jurisdiction. As noted above,
within Venezuela, Pequiven sells orthoxylene only to the two PA
producers. Both PA producers are charged the same price by Pequiven. As
a result, we do not have a non-specific price to use as a benchmark.
In the absence of a non-specific price, the Department normally
looks to the alternative benchmarks listed in Sec. 355.44(f)(2) of the
Proposed Regulations. The first alternative listed in the Proposed
Regulations is the price charged by the same seller for a similar or
related good adjusted for any cost differences. The petition identified
paraxylene and mixed-xylene as two similar products. While Pequiven
agrees that these two products, in addition to metaxylene, are similar
products to orthoxylene, it does not produce or sell those products.
Pequiven did not identify any other similar products. Therefore, we
were unable to use this approach to calculate a benchmark.
The second alternative listed in the Proposed Regulations is the
price charged within the jurisdiction by other sellers for an identical
good or service. As stated in Carbon Black from Mexico; Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (51 FR 13269,
April 18, 1986), ``[t]hese other sellers may include private sellers
within the jurisdiction or foreign sellers selling into the
jurisdiction * * *'' Pequiven is the only domestic producer/seller of
orthoxylene in Venezuela. However, orthoxylene was imported into
Venezuela during the POI.
The GOV provided U.S. export statistics on shipments of orthoxylene
to Venezuela during the period 1992-1993. From these statistics, we
used the information on the one entry that occurred during the POI to
calculate a benchmark price since this price reflects ``a price charged
within the jurisdiction by other sellers for an identical good.'' This
import into Venezuela from the United States was reported on a FAS
basis. Therefore, we added an amount for ocean freight and insurance
from the United States to Venezuela. The amount for ocean freight and
insurance was obtained from an independent shipping company (see
memorandum from case analyst to the file, January 13, 1994).
We then compared the adjusted import price to the price Pequiven
charged for orthoxylene in the month that orthoxylene was exported from
the United States. Based on this comparison, we found that Pequiven's
price was greater than the price of imported orthoxylene.
For the purposes of this preliminary determination, we find the use
of a single import price to be a sufficient basis for our analysis. We
examined prices in the largest international markets for orthoxylene
and found minimal price fluctuations during the POI. In addition, the
import price approximated the prices in these markets.
Furthermore, as stated above, Pequiven ties its domestic prices to
international prices. Therefore, we would expect to find only
negligible differences between the price Pequiven charges domestically
and the price of imports into Venezuela. To test this assumption, we
averaged U.S. import prices for the three months in which we had data
(one within the POI and two within two months of the POI on either
side). We compared this average to the average price Pequiven charged
in the same three months and found that Pequiven's average price was
greater than the average price of the imports from the United States.
Therefore, we find that the GOV, through Pequiven, did not provide
orthoxylene to PA producers at preferential rates during the POI.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used
We preliminarily determine that producers or exporters in Venezuela
of the subject merchandise did not receive benefits during the POI for
exports of the subject merchandise to the United States under the
following programs:
A. FINEXPO Preferential Short-Term Export Loans
B. FINEXPO Preferential Long-Term Export Loans
C. Excessive Tariff Drawback
D. Preferential Tax Exemptions Under the 1966 Income Tax Law
Because we find that the GOV did not provide orthoxylene at
preferential rates and all other programs were not used, we
preliminarily determine that no benefits which constitute bounties or
grants within the meaning of the countervailing duty law are being
provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters of PA from
Venezuela.
Verification
In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the
information used in making our final determination.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 355.38, any interested party or U.S.
Government agency may submit case briefs or other written comments with
ten copies of the business proprietary version and five copies of the
nonproprietary version to the Assistant Secretary no later than March
25, 1994, and rebuttal briefs no later than March 30, 1994. In
accordance with 19 CFR 355.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if
requested by an interested party, to give interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs.
Tentatively, the hearing will be held on Monday, April 4, 1994, at 1
p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, room 3708, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before
the scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, room B099, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, within ten days of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Requests should contain: (1)
The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; (3) the reason for attending; and (4) a list of the
issues to be discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 355.38(b), oral
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
This determination is published pursuant to section 703(f) of the
Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(f)).
Dated: January 18, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-1779 Filed 1-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
