[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5620-5622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2235]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-836]
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Glycine From the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Strumbel, Office of Countervailing
Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1442.
Final Determination: We determine that imports of glycine from the
People's Republic of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be, sold
in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section
735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated
margin is shown in the ``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation''
section of this notice.
Case History
Since the preliminary determination (59 FR 220, November 16, 1994)
the following events have occurred:
On December 1, 1994, petitioners submitted an allegation of
critical circumstances. On January 3, 1995, the Department made an
affirmative preliminary determination that critical circumstances
exist.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is glycine which is a
freeflowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is
produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste
enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical
intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. Glycine is currently
classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The scope of this investigation
includes glycine of all purity levels.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is February 1 through July 31,
1994.
Best Information Available
We sent an antidumping questionnaire to the PRC Ministry of Foreign
Economic Trade and Cooperation (MOFTEC) and we met with the China
Chamber of Commerce for Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and
Exporters (the Chamber) and requested that they: (1) Furnish the
questionnaire to any glycine producers and exporters with U.S. sales
during the POI, and (2) provide a list of those companies that received
the questionnaire. We received a response from the Chamber stating that
no Chinese producers or exporters wanted to participate in the case.
Accordingly, given that the respondents refused to cooperate in the
investigation, we have based our final determination on the best
information available (BIA), in accordance with section 776(c) of the
Act.
The Department's BIA methodology is described in the notice of the
preliminary determination. In this case, BIA is the information
contained in the petition, as amended on July 22, 1994. See Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Glycine from the People's Republic
of China (59 FR 38435, July 28, 1994). The amended petition provides a
range of margins, from 86.43 to 155.89 percent for all PRC producers
and exporters of glycine. Because there were no cooperative respondents
in this investigation, we are assigning to all exporters, as BIA, a
margin of 155.89 percent, the highest margin calculated in the
petition.
Critical Circumstances
Petitioners alleged that critical circumstances exist with respect
to imports of glycine from the PRC. In our determination on January 3,
1995, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.16, we
preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist because the
PRC producers and exporters failed to cooperate with this proceeding.
For purposes of this final determination, we have reconsidered our
preliminary determination that failure to cooperate in the
investigation warranted an automatic finding that imports were massive
over a relatively short period. Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department will [[Page 5621]] determine that critical
circumstances exist if:
(A)(i) There is a history of dumping in the United States or
elsewhere of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of
the investigation, or
(ii) The person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the
merchandise which is the subject of the investigation at less than its
fair value, and
(B) There have been massive imports of the class or kind of
merchandise which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively
short period.
According to Sec. 353.16(g) of the Department's regulations, we treat
imports as being massive if they increase by 15 percent.
To determine whether PRC glycine imports have been massive over a
relatively short period, we used import statistics from the Bureau of
Census. We were able to use these statistics because the HTSUS
statistical category matches the scope of the investigation (see
Comment 1, below). In addition, although our standard critical
circumstances methodology is based on company specific import data, we
believe that the public information regarding the volume of PRC imports
into the United States is the best available information for
determining whether critical circumstances exist. This is based on the
facts that (1) the subject merchandise is the only merchandise imported
under the relevant HTSUS number and (2) the Department presumes that
all exporters in the PRC are owned or controlled by the PRC government.
Pursuant to Sec. 353.16(g) of the Department's regulations, when
making critical circumstances determinations, the Department normally
compares the period beginning on the first day of the month of the
initiation and ending at least three months later with a comparable
period prior to the initiation. The Department considers the period
immediately prior to a preliminary determination because it is the
period in which exporters of the subject merchandise could take
advantage of the knowledge of the dumping investigation to increase
exports to the United States without being subject to antidumping
duties. See, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value of
Certain Internal-Combustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, (53
FR 12552, April 15, 1988). For purposes of this final determination, we
are comparing the four month period prior to the initiation with the
four month period after the initiation of this investigation.
Based on our analysis of the available monthly import statistics,
we have determined that imports of glycine have not been massive over a
relatively short period of time. The import statistics show that volume
of the imports has increased by only 7.14 percent. Therefore, we find
that the requirements of section 733(e)(1)(B) have not been met with
respect to glycine from the PRC.
Because we find that imports of glycine from the PRC have not been
massive over a relatively short period, we do not need to consider
whether there is a history of dumping or whether importers of this
project knew or should have known that it was being sold at less than
fair value. Therefore, we determine that critical circumstances do not
exist with respect to imports of glycine from the PRC.
Interested Party Comments
Comment 1
Kal Kan Foods, an interested party, argues that the Department's
preliminary determination of critical circumstances was unfair and not
in accordance with the Department's precedent. Kal Kan contends that
U.S. glycine importers had no knowledge that the merchandise was being
sold in the United States at less than a fair value. Accordingly to Kal
Kan, the Department's non-market economy (NME) methodology, which uses
surrogate values, is complex and causes the calculated dumping margins
to be unpredictable. Kal Kan further contends that the Department
should use the public information of the Bureau of Census to determine
the existence of massive imports instead of relying on BIA.
Petitioners disagree with the interested party's argument and argue
that the Department should make a final affirmative determination of
critical circumstances based on BIA.
DOC Position
Under the circumstances present in this case, it is possible for
the Department to use public information, such as Census data, to
determine whether imports have been massive over a relatively short
period. In this proceeding, the product under investigation has a
unique HTSUS number, hence, the import statistics only reflect imports
of the subject merchandise. Moreover, in accordance with the
Department's presumption that all exporters in the PRC are owned or
controlled by the government, we view the exporters as a single
company. Given these two factors, the import statistics constitute a
reasonable surrogate for company-specific import data.
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
Pursuant to section 735(c)(4) of the Act, we are directing the
Customs Service to cease suspension of liquidation of all entries of
glycine from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption from August 18, 1994, (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of
publication of our preliminary determination in the Federal Register)
to November 15, 1994. However, we are directing the Customs Service to
continue to suspend liquidation for entries of glycine from the PRC
that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after November 16, 1994, the date of the publication of the preliminary
determination in the Federal Register. The Customs Service shall
require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to 155.89 percent ad
valorem on all entries of glycine from the PRC. This suspension of
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. The ITC will now determine, within 45 days,
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threatening material
injury to the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material
injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, the proceeding
will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or
cancelled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the
Department will issue an antidumping order directing Customs officials
to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to
comply is a violation of the APO.
This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the
Act and 19 CFR 353.20(a)(4).
[[Page 5622]] Dated: January 23, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-2235 Filed 1-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
