[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67665-67668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32545]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-041]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review on Synthetic Methionine
from Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: synthetic
methionine from Japan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 3, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding on
synthetic methionine from Japan (63 FR 41227) pursuant to section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the
basis of a notice of intent to participate and a complete substantive
[[Page 67666]]
response filed on behalf of the domestic industry, and inadequate
response (in this case no response) from respondent interested parties,
the Department determined to conduct an expedited review. As a result
of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping
finding would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping at the levels indicated in the Appendix to this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G.
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. &
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230: telephone (202) 482-3207
or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1998.
Statute and Regulations
This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of
the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of the sunset
reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year
(``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Order, 63
FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''). Guidance on
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'').
Scope
The merchandise subject to this antidumping finding is synthetic
methionine other than synthetic L methionine. Synthetic methionine is
an amino acid produced in two grades, DL methionine national formula
grade (used for research and pharmaceutical purposes) and L methionine
feed grade (used as a food additive). Both grades of synthetic
methionine are currently classifiable under item 425.0420 of the Tariff
Schedules of the United States Annotated and Harmonized Tariff Schedule
item number 2930.40.00.
Background
On August 3, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping finding on synthetic methionine from Japan (63 FR 41227)
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice
of Intent to Participate from Degussa Corporation (``Degussa''), NOVUS
International Inc., (``NOVUS''), and Rhone-Poulenc Animal Nutrition
(``RPAN'') (collectively, ``petitioners'') within the deadline
specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Each
company claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the
Act as a U.S. manufacturer of synthetic methionine. We received a
complete substantive response on September 2, 1998 from the
petitioners. We did not receive a response from any respondent
interested party. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the
Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)) of the Sunset Regulations, we
determined to conduct an expedited review.
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in
making this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-
average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent
reviews and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the
period before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping
finding, and it shall provide to the International Trade Commission
(``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to
prevail if the finding is revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed below.
In addition, parties' comments with respect to the continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are addressed
within the respective sections below.
Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping
Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically
the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No.
103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt. 1
(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the
Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on
methodological and analytical issues, including the bases for
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.3). In addition, the Department
indicated that normally it will determine that revocation of an
antidumping order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping where (a) dumping continued at any level above de minimis after
the issuance of the order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise
ceased after the issuance of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated
after the issuance of the order and import volumes for the subject
merchandise declined significantly (see section II.A.3).
The antidumping finding on synthetic methionine from Japan was
published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 73-188 (38 FR
18382, July 10, 1973). In the 1980's, the Department conducted several
administrative reviews.1 The finding remains in effect for
all imports of synthetic methionine from Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Synthetic Methionine From Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review and Clarification of Antidumping Finding; 47
FR 15622 (April 12, 1982); Antidumping; Synthetic Methionine from
Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping
Finding; 48 FR 20465 (May 6, 1983); Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review; Synthetic Methionine from Japan; 52 FR 38953
(October 20, 1987); and Synthetic Methionine From Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 53 FR 15261
(April 28, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners argue that revocation of the finding would result
in the continuation or recurrence of dumping on the basis that (1) the
imposition of the finding resulted in the departure of imports of
Japanese synthetic methionine from the U.S. market, (2) Japanese
producers would re-enter the U.S. market at dumped prices, and (3)
Japanese producers could not sell in the U.S. market without dumping.
With respect to the cessation of imports of Japanese synthetic
methionine, the petitioners provided statistics for imports of
synthetic methionine (both DL- and L-methionine) for the period 1968
through 1997.2 The petitioners stated that L-methionine is
considerably more expensive than DL methionine and, based on the
substantial decline in volume (from 2890 metric tons in 1978 to 86
metric tons in 1997) and the substantial increase in unit values (from
$2.53/kg. in 1978 to $25.78/kg. in 1997), virtually all imports of
synthetic methionine from Japan since 1978 consist of L-methionine.
Therefore, the petitioners conclude that imports of DL-
[[Page 67667]]
methionine have declined or ceased following the imposition of the
finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Petitioners' September 2, 1998, Substantive Response to
Notice of Initiation, Table 1, page 8. Complied from prepared
testimony of Dale MacDonald before United States Tariff Commission
for 1968-1972 and from Bureau of Census Data for TSUSA 425.0420 and
HTS 2930.40.00 for 1985-1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of its assertion that Japanese producers would re-enter
the U.S. market at dumped prices, the petitioners argue that, as
demonstrated by the original finding, Japanese producers have a history
of dumping excess production capacity in the U.S. market. Further, the
petitioners contend that the circumstances that face the Japanese
methionine industry today are remarkably similar to those existing at
the time of the original investigation, particularly with respect to
Japanese excess capacity and the need to export the vast majority of
production. Based on statistics from the United Nations Statistical
Division, Commodity Trade Statistics, the petitioners note that for the
1995 through 1997 period, Japan exported a significant volume of
synthetic methionine, particularly to Asian countries. Petitioners add
that, presumably in response to increased demand in recent years,
particularly in Asia, the Japanese industry has completed a substantial
addition to its production capacity. Petitioners argue, therefore, that
the Asian financial crisis and recent additions to capacity have left
Japanese producers again with substantial excess capacity and the need
to find new markets.
Finally, in support of its assertion that the Japanese producers
could not sell in the U.S. market without dumping if the antidumping
finding were revoked, the petitioners state that the U.S. market for
synthetic methionine is characterized by intense competition. The
petitioners add that, as the largest consumers of methionine, the
United States also has the largest customers and, consequently, prices
in the United States are lower than in the rest of the world. Using
proprietary information related to Japanese home market prices and U.S.
sales prices during the 1995 to 1997, the petitioners claim that
Japanese producers would have to dump their merchandise in order to
make a sale in the U.S. market.
For the reasons stated above, the petitioners strongly support a
determination that dumping of Japanese synthetic methionine is likely
to continue or recur if the finding were revoked.
In the first administrative review conducted by the Department
covering imports prior to June 30, 1980, the Department found that 11
of the 19 Japanese manufacturers and exporters either had no shipments
or no longer existed.3 In subsequent administrative reviews,
the Department found no shipments from all but two non-responsive
companies.4 We find, therefore, that the cessation of
imports and the existence of dumping margins after the issuance of the
finding is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of dumping of synthetic methionine from Japan. Deposit rates
above de minimis continue in effect for several manufacturers,
exporters, and/or third country resellers (for example, Nippon Kayaku,
Nippon Soda/Mitsui, Nippon Soda/Mitsui/Central Soya
(Canada)).5 As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset
Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if
imports cease after the order is issued, we may reasonably assume that
exporters could not sell in the United States without dumping and that,
to reenter the U.S. market, they would have to resume dumping.
Therefore, given that shipments of the subject merchandise ceased soon
after the issuance of the finding and that dumping margins continue
after the issuance of the finding, and absent argument and evidence to
the contrary, the Department, consistent with section II.A.3 of the
Sunset Policy Bulletin, determines that dumping is likely to continue
or recur if the finding were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Synthetic Methionine From Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review and Clarification of Antidumping Finding; 47
FR 15622 (April 12, 1982).
\4\ See Antidumping; Synthetic Methionine from Japan; Final
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 20465
(May 6, 1983); Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review;
Synthetic Methionine from Japan; 52 FR 38953 (October 20, 1987); and
Synthetic Methionine From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 53 FR 15261 (April 28, 1988).
\5\ See Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review;
Synthetic Methionine from Japan; 52 FR 38953 (October 20, 1987); and
Synthetic Methionine From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 53 FR 15261 (April 28, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnitude of Dumping
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, in a
sunset review of an antidumping finding for which no company-specific
margin or ``all others'' rate is included in the Treasury finding
published in the Federal Register, the Department normally will provide
to the Commission the company-specific margin from the first final
results of administrative review published in the Federal Register by
the Department. Additionally, if the first final results do not contain
a margin for a particular company, the Department normally will provide
the Commission, as the margin for that company, the first ``new
shipper'' rate established by the Department for that finding. (See
section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) Exceptions to this
policy include the use of a more recently calculated margin, where
appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption determinations. (See
sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
Because Treasury did not publish weighted-average dumping margins
in its finding, the margins determined in the original investigation
are not available to the Department for use in this sunset review.
Under these circumstances, the Department normally will select the
margin from the first administrative review conducted by the Department
as the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the
finding is revoked.
In its substantive response, the petitioners propose three
alternatives as the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the
finding is revoked: (1) The original dumping margin, (2) the margin
found in the most recent administrative review, or (3) a new margin
established by using information on Japanese and U.S. prices. In
support of their request that the Department select the original
dumping margin of 48 percent, the petitioners state that although this
rate was not included in the finding issued by the Treasury, this rate
can be documented as the original fair value rate from several sources,
including the Department's first final results of administrative review
in which the Department used this rate as the ``best information
available.''6 The petitioners suggest that should the
Department decline to select the original dumping margin of 48 percent,
the Department should select the dumping margin of 79 percent found in
the most recent administrative review that involved actual
shipments.7 Finally, the petitioners suggest that the
Department could utilize current pricing information for the Japanese
and U.S. market provided in its substantive response to determine a new
margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Synthetic Methionine From Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review and Clarification of Antidumping Finding; 47
FR 15622 (April 12, 1982).
\7\ See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Synthetic Methionine from Japan; 52 FR 38953 (October 20, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, although the petitioners submitted information
identifying the margin determined by Treasury to be 48 percent (or 50
percent depending upon source),8 and the Department, in its
first administrative review identified the 48 percent ``best
information available'' rate for non-responsive firms as being
[[Page 67668]]
the ``fair value rate,' 9 this rate was not published by
Treasury in its July 10, 1973 finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Petitioners' September 2, 1998, Substantive Response to
Notice of Initiation, pp. 21-24.
\9\ See Synthetic Methionine From Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review and Clarification of Antidumping Finding; 47
FR 15622 (April 12, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to petitioners' comment that the Department should use
the margin established in the most recent review covering actual
shipments for certain producers, petitioners have not provided an
adequate basis for deviating from the Department's stated policy as set
out above. Petitioners assert that this margin relates to a more recent
period--July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986--and is higher than the
margins calculated in the first review conducted by the Department. In
the Sunset Policy Bulletin the Department stated that ``a company may
choose to increase dumping in order to maintain or increase market
share'' and that ``the Department may, in response to argument from an
interested party, provide to the Commission a more recently calculated
margin for a particular company, where, for that particular company,
dumping margins increased after the issuance of the order.'' (See
section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) The policy does not
envision a general exception for any case in which a higher margin was
found at some point during the life of the order. The Department's
intent was to establish a policy of using the original investigation
margin as the starting point, thus providing interested parties the
opportunity and incentive to come forward with data which would support
a different estimate. The petitioners, however, merely assert that
``this is a large margin and is therefore indicative of how Japanese
merchandise is likely to be priced in the absence of an order.'' (See
Petitioners' September 2, 1998, Substantive Response, p. 25.) The
petitioners did not, however, present arguments with respect to changes
in margin levels as related to market share. The statistics provided by
the petitioners, 1968-1997 annual volume, value, and unit value of
imports of synthetic methionine (both DL and L), do not show an
increase in imports concurrent with an increase in dumping, nor does it
present the Department with a picture of the relative market shares
held by Japanese manufacturers and exporters. Given the information
available to the Department, it is not possible to discern whether any
increases or decreases in margins reflect an effort to maintain or
increase market share.
Similarly, petitioners request that the Department use existing
information on Japanese and U.S. prices to calculate a margin does not
provide an adequate basis for altering our approach. As noted in the
Sunset Regulations and Sunset Policy Bulletin, only under the most
extraordinary circumstances will the Department rely on a dumping
margin other than those it calculated and published in its prior
determination and, further, that it will consider other factors, such
as prices and costs, in AD sunset reviews only where it determines that
good cause to consider such other factors exists. 10
Petitioners did not make any ``good cause'' arguments. Further,
petitioners have not offered any rationale suggesting that such a
calculation would not be more speculative and, therefore, less
probative than a calculated rate from an administrative review.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that it is appropriate to deviate from
the policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Section 351.218(e)(2) of the Sunset Regulations and
Section II.C of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, we are not persuaded that we should deviate from our
the policy, as stated in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, of using the first
rates calculated by the Department where published Treasury rates are
not available. Rather, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we
determine that the original margins calculated by the Department are
probative of the behavior of the Japanese manufacturers and exporters
of synthetic methionine. The Department will report to the Commission
the company-specific and ``all others'' rate contained in the Appendix
to this notice.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed in the Appendix to this
notice.
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 Section 351.305 of the Department's regulations.
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 sanctionable
violation.
This five-year ``sunset'' review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 1, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturers/exporters (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajinimoto Co................................................. 5.54
Apls Pharmaceutical Co....................................... 22.54
Amano Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd................................ 48.00
Chugai Boyeki Co............................................. 0
Daida Bussan Co.............................................. 0
Helm Japan Ltd............................................... 11.14
Inuiu Yakuhin Kogyo.......................................... 0
Isho Corportation............................................ 0
Iwaka & Co................................................... 1.69
Koyo Merchantile Co., Ltd.................................... 0
Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co......................................... 30.68
Marubeni Corp................................................ 48.00
Nippon Kayaku................................................ 0
Nippon Soda Co., Ltd./Mitsui & Co............................ 8.83
Nisso Raiho Kogyo & Co., Ltd................................. 0
K Sakai & Co................................................. 0
Sakai Chemical............................................... 13.43
Sumitomo Chemical Industrial Co.............................. 0
Tetra Chemicals Co........................................... 8.40
All others................................................... 48.00
Third-Country Reseller (country)
Atlantic Trading Co. (Canada)................................ 0
H.J. Baker & Brothers (West Germany)......................... 0
Chemical & Feeds Ltd. (England).............................. 48.00
Chemo Dondorff (West Germany)................................ 48.00
Deutsch-Norwegische GmbH (West Germany)...................... 22.53
Fortamex Chemicals (Canada).................................. 21.66
Karl O. Helm (West Germany).................................. 1.31
Hoffman LaRoche (Canada)..................................... 0
Instel Corp. (France)........................................ 6.25
MAC Organization (Italy)..................................... 0
Mitsui & Co. (Belgium)....................................... 0
Mitsui & Co. ( United Kingdom)............................... 0
Nutrikem Limited (United Kingdom)............................ 0
Seimsgluss & Shon (West Germany)............................. 48.00
R.W. Unwin & Co ( United Kingdom)............................ 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-32545 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
