[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8424-8426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4509]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-830]
Coumarin From the People's Republic of China: Amended Order and
Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation in Accordance
With Decision Upon Remand
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Amendment to final determination of antidumping duty
investigation in accordance with decision upon remand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 9, 1996, the Court of International Trade (CIT)
remanded to the Department of Commerce, International Trade
Administration (the Department), one issue arising from the antidumping
determination titled Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Coumarin From the People's Republic of China (59 FR 66895,
December 28, 1994).
Pursuant to the remand order, the Departmental filed its Remand
Determination: Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 95-03-
00275, on September 23, 1996. Upon finding errors in the Remand
Determination, the Department filed its Amended Remand Determination:
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. United States on October 3, 1996 (the ``Amended
Remand Results''). In
[[Page 8425]]
accordance with the remand order, the Department reconsidered its
valuation of the by-products of coumarin production in light of the
presence of impurities, recalculated the value of the by-products, and
adjusted the subject PRC exporters' dumping margins accordingly. The
Department applied best information available (BIA) in revaluing
Tianjin Native Produce Import and Export Corporation's by-products
because of the company's failure to provide information in response to
the Department's remand questionnaire. After recalculation, the
Department revised the final determination margins, as shown below.
In plaintiff's comments to the Department's Amended Remand Results,
filed October 7, 1996, Rhone-Polenc indicated its concurrence with said
results and asked that they be affirmed by the CIT. The Cit affirmed
and dismissed (Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., v. United States, Slip Op. 97-15
(dated February 4, 1997).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 30, 1994, pursuant to the CIT's preliminary
injunction dated July 7, 1995 (see ``Suspension of Liquidation''
section).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger, Office 5, AD/CVD
Enforcement II, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4136.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 28, 1994, the Department published its Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coumarin from the
People's Republic of China (59 FR 66895). In its final determination,
the Department calculated the foreign market value (FMV) for each
exporter by valuing the factors of production according to the
appropriate surrogate value, in accordance with Section 773(c)(2)-(4)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. In the LTFV investigation, the
Department had offset the cost of manufacturing by the surrogate value
of the by-products recovered, i.e., acetic acid, hydrochloric acid and
alcohol, as adjusted (where appropriate) only for concentration levels.
The CIT remanded the final determination to the Department for
reconsideration of its valuation of the by-products for Changzhou,
Jiangsu Native's supplier, and Tianjin Perfumery, Tiajin Native's
supplier, to either take into account whether there were impurities,
and their effect on value, or alternatively, to present valid reasons
for the Department's failure to determine the effect of impurities on
the value of the by-products.
Remand Results
The Department set about requesting and obtaining information to
determine whether there were impurities in the by-products in question.
Both petitioner and Changzhou submitted information in this regard, but
Tianjin Perfumery did not respond to a questionnaire or provide any
other information for the remand proceeding. In addition, the
Department obtained information concerning acetic acid from Chemical
Business, an Indian publication used as the source for a number of
surrogate values in the original proceeding and also consulted with
chemical industry specialist at the International Trade Commission
(ITC). In the LTFV investigation, the Department had valued by-product
acetic acid as glacial acetic acid, which has a concentrated level of
99% purity. However, for the remand, in comparing the chemical
specification of glacial acetic acid provided by Chemical Business to
the composition of Changzhou's recovered acetic acid, we found that
Changzhou's recovered acetic acid was not glacial acetic acid. As a
result, for the remand, the Department attempted to find a value from
the surrogate country that best approximated the recovered acetic acid
reported.
Acetic Acid
For the remand, Changzhou provided the Department with the actual
percentage of acetic acid (97%-98%) found in its recovered acetic acid
resulting from its production of coumarin during the POI. Changzhou
also indicated that it did not have any impurities in its recovered
acidic acid. The Department was able to obtain additional information
on Indian price data for recovered acetic acid at a concentration level
comparable to Changzhou's actual recovered acetic acid. However,
neither the Department nor the petitioner was able to obtain any
information as to what impurities may also be present in the recovered
acetic acid. The price quote was corroborated by the Department through
the research performed by the U.S. Consulate General in Mumbai, India.
It appeared that recovered acetic acid of 97-98% concentrate is not
typically traded in India, but at least two Indian companies offered
this product for sale. The Consulate General contacted the source of
the July 1996 written price quote that petitioner had submitted for the
remand and confirmed that this company offered 96%-98% recovered acetic
acid at the price reported by petitioner. We determined that this price
quote would take into account whatever impurities may exist. As a
result, we revised our valuation of Changzhou's recovered acetic acid
using this verified Indian price quote, after making adjustments.
Our recalculation adjusted the tax-exclusive POI glacial acetic
acid value, which the Department had obtained in the LTFV investigation
from Chemical Weekly, an Indian industry publication, to reflect a
recovered acetic acid value of 96-98% percent concentration. This
adjustment was based on the percentage difference between the price
levels of these two grades of acetic acid as observed in July 1996. The
resulting POI surrogate value for this by-product factor more
accurately reflects the actual concentration level of the Changzhou
product as well as the price impact of any chemical impurities that
might be present at that concentration level.
Hydrochloric Acid
For the remand, Changzhou stated that there were no impurities in
its recovered hydrochloric acid, apart from water. In consultation with
the ITC, the Department determined that the presence of any alleged
impurities (i.e. other than water) was insignificant and would not
affect the value for Changzhou's recovered hydrochloric acid. Further,
the Department determined that the water present in the hydrochloric
acid only affected the value by establishing the concentration level.
In our LTFV calculation, we had already reduced the surrogate value of
Changzhou's recovered hydrochloric acid to account for its lower
concentration level compared to standard commercial grades. However,
for the remand, the Department also obtained additional information on
the standard commercial grades of hydrochloric acid, ranging from
petitioner's 31.45% grade to the 36% grade found in the The Merck Index
which was used by the ITC chemists. These two grades fall within the
range of standard commercial grades of 28% to 37% described in The
Condensed Chemical Dictionary. In the LTFV investigation, we used the
midpoint of this range, 32.5%, as the average commercial grade, and
then adjusted the surrogate value for this by-product by the ratio of
Changzhou's verified concentration level to the average commercial
concentration. For these remand results, we found no basis to further
adjust the surrogate value.
Because Tianjin Perfumery did not respond to our questionnaire, we
drew adverse inferences regarding the extent
[[Page 8426]]
to which impurities reduced the value of its recovered acetic acid.
Therefore, as BIA, we discounted this value by 52%, the amount
calculated by petitioner, based on the lowest price on the LTFV
investigative record for recovered acetic acid of unknown
specifications sold in India. Additionally, we had no information on
the impurities present in Tianjin Perfumery's hydrochloric acid. As
BIA, we drew the adverse inference that it contained impurities which
reduced its value. We had no information on the record from which to
quantify the effect of these impurities beyond the adjustment for the
concentration percentage. However, the Department had verified that
this by-product was sold, and not given away, to unrelated parties
during the POI. Therefore, as BIA, we did not value hydrochloric acid
at zero. Rather, for the remand, instead of using petitioner's price
quote as BIA as we did in the final LTFV determination, we used price
information from export statistics which was lower. Finally, since
Tianjin Perfumery refused to provide information about the impurities
present in its alcohol by-product, as BIA, we made the adverse
inference that the effect of impurities is great enough to render
negligible the value of the recoverable alcohol. Accordingly, we
revised Tianjin Perfumery's FMV calculation by valuing the offset for
the recovered alcohol as zero.
On February 4, 1997, the CIT affirmed the remand results of the
Department in the matter of: Coumarin from the People's Republic of
China; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Rhone
Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 95-03-00275 (May 9, 1996). As
a result, the margins changed as listed below.
Suspension of Liquidation
During the pendency of the court suit, on July 7, 1995, the Court
of International Trade preliminarily enjoined liquidation on all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after July 30, 1994, the date of
publication of the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation.
Therefore, because no request for review was made in the anniversary
month of the first review, and in accordance with 19 USC 1516a(e)(2),
the Department will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate entries
from July 30, 1994, up to and including February 29, 1996, the period
of the first review, at the rates set forth below. Additionally, the
Department will instruct the Customs Service to collect cash deposits
at these same rates for entries of subject merchandise occurring on or
after March 1, 1996.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we have re-calculated the LTFV
margins as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiangsu Native Produce Import and Export 31.02.
Corp.
Tiangin Native Produce Import and Export 70.45.
Corp.
PRC-Wide Rate............................. 160.80
(no change).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: February 18, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-4509 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
