[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5633-5635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2673]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-007]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Barium Chloride From
the People's Republic of China (PRC)
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Barium
Chloride from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on
barium chloride from China (PRC) (63 FR 52683) 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
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
order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section 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: February 4, 1999.
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 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''). 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 covered by this order is barium chloride, a
chemical compound having the formula BaCl2 or
BaCl2 2H2O, currently classifiable under item
2827.38.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS). The HTS item
number is provided for convenience and for Customs purposes. The
written descriptions remain dispositive.
This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of barium
chloride from China.
Background: On October 1, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset
review of the antidumping order on barium chloride from China (63 FR
52683) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a
Notice of Intent to Participate from Chemical Products Corporation
(``CPC'') on October 15, 1998, within the deadline specified in section
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. CPC claimed interested
party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a United States
producer of barium chloride. In its substantive response, CPC stated
that it was the petitioner in the original antidumping investigation
that led to the issuance of the antidumping duty order on barium
chloride from China.
[[Page 5634]]
Further, CPC stated that it has participated in all of the
administrative reviews that have been conducted by the Department on
barium chloride from China. On October 28, 1998, the Department
received a substantive response from CPC, within the 30-day deadline
specified in Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). 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 our
regulations (19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), 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 order 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 basis for likelihood determinations. The Department
clarified that determinations of likelihood will be made on an order-
wide basis (see section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
Additionally, the Department normally 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. of the Sunset
Policy Bulletin).
The antidumping duty order on barium chloride from China was issued
on October 17,1984.1 Since that time, the Department has
conducted several administrative reviews.2 The antidumping
duty order remains in effect for all imports of barium chloride from
China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Barium Chloride from the People's Republic of China,
Antidumping Duty Order, 49 FR 40635 (October 17, 1984).
\2\ See Barium Chloride from the People's Republic of China;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 52 FR 313
(January 5, 1987); Barium Chloride form the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54
FR 52 (January 3, 1989); and Barium Chloride from the People's
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 57 FR 29467 (July 2, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, CPC argued that revocation of the
antidumping duty order would result in the resumption of export
shipments of barium chloride from China on a large scale and at prices
well below fair value. CPC based its conclusion on a number of factors,
including historical experience, Chinese productive capacity, the Asian
economic crisis, and Chinese export policy. CPC argued that the
Department should determine that dumping will continue or resume on the
basis that dumping continued at levels above de minimis while the order
has been in effect and imports of the subject merchandise ceased after
the issuance of the order.
With respect to continuation of dumping after the issuance of the
order, CPC referred to the final results of administrative reviews
issued by the Department 3 and stated that historical
experience clearly demonstrates that the subject merchandise has been
dumped at margins greater than de minimis since the issuance of the
order. CPC stated that the 60.84 percent duty deposit margin currently
in effect for Sinochem (the Chinese manufacturer/exporter reviewed) was
first imposed in the final results of administrative review issued on
January 3, 1989.4 CPC suggested that, as a result of the
60.84 percent deposit rate, there was a significant decrease in exports
and ultimately a cessation of exports. CPC noted that for the October
1, 1990 through September 30, 1991, review period, the Department found
that there were no shipments. CPC supports its assertion that the order
resulted in the decrease, and ultimate cessation, of exports of barium
chloride from China with reference to import statistics.5
CPC asserts that the Department's issuance of preliminary and final
determinations of sales at less than fair value in April and August of
1984, resulted in the decrease of imports from China from 5.3 million
pounds in 1983 to 3.2 million pounds in 1984. CPC also noted that with
the 1989 issuance on a 60.84 percent duty deposit rate, imports
decreased from 1.5 million pounds in 1988 to 0.2 million pounds in
1989, and ultimately to zero by 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
\4\ The review covered the period October 1, 1985 through
September 30, 1986, and set the duty deposit rates for entries on or
after the publication date of the notice.
\5\ CPC provided data collected from the U.S. Census Bureau and
published on Form IM 145 (from 1980 through 1988 the data were
reported under TSUS 417.70.00 and for 1989 through 1997 under HTSUS
287.38.0000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPC acknowledged that imports reappeared in 1994, but at levels
significantly below pre-order levels. CPC argued, therefore, that the
continuation of dumping combined with the cessation of exports
demonstrates that Chinese barium chloride cannot be sold in the U.S.
market except through dumping. CPC also asserted that, in addition to
the original three Chinese factories producing barium chloride (as
identified in the ITC's report), it had obtained information that an
additional seven factories (with capacity of 73,400 MT/annum) produce
barium chloride in China. Noting that barium chloride is a commodity
chemical product with a number of industrial uses and applications, CPC
argued that as economic and industrial activity slows in China's
traditional Asian markets, the demand for barium chloride will decrease
and Chinese exports will decline. Therefore, asserts CPC, without an
antidumping order in place, the Chinese producers of barium chloride
can be expected to turn their attention to the U.S. market for their
excess production. Finally, CPC argues that, as supported by statements
of U.S. government officials, China has an aggressive export policy in
place that, with the revocation of the order, could be expected to
result in the resumption of large-scale shipments to the United States.
In conclusion, CPC stated that for each of the above discussed
reasons, without an order in place, dumping from China would likely
overwhelm CPC and eliminate the lone remaining U.S. producer of barium
chloride.
As discussed in Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890,
[[Page 5635]]
and the House Report at 63-64, ``Existence of dumping margins after the
order, or the cessation of imports after the order, is highly probative
of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. If
companies continue to dump with the discipline of an order in place, it
is reasonable to assume that dumping would continue if the discipline
were removed. If imports cease after the order is issued, it is
reasonable to assume that the exporters could not sell in the United
States without dumping and that, to reenter the U.S. market, they would
have to resume dumping.'' Deposit rates above de minimis continue in
effect for exports of barium chloride from China. Additionally, exports
of barium chloride from China ceased between 1991 and 1993, and
although since resumed, have never reached higher than six percent of
their pre-order level. Therefore, given that dumping above de minimis
has continued over the life of the order and imports ceased at least
temporarily, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the
Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the order
were revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin: In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department stated that, consistent with the SAA and House Report, the
Department will provide to the Commission the company-specific margins
from the investigation for each company because that is the only
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the
discipline of an order. For companies not specifically investigated or
for companies that did not begin shipping until after the order was
issued, the Department normally will provide a margin based on the all
others rate from the investigation. 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.
In its substantive response, CPC urged the Department to determine
that the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order were
revoked is 60.84 percent, the margin determined in the final results of
the second administrative review and the current duty deposit rate. CPC
asserted that the Department has recognized that dumping margins can
increase after the issuance of an order and that a more current and
higher margin, even if based on the best information available, may
well be a more appropriate indicator of the magnitude of the margin
likely to prevail if the order were revoked. CPC argued that the
dumping margin and cash deposit rate for barium chloride from China
increased significantly after the issuance of the antidumping duty
order--from 14.5 percent to 60.84 percent. CPC stated that the 14.5
percent rate from the original investigation was never actually used as
the basis of assessing duties, as it was replaced by a rate of 7.82
percent in the first administrative review. Given that the margin of
60.84 percent has applied to all imports since October 1, 1986, CPC
argues that this is the only appropriate and realistic measure of the
magnitude of dumping.
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 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.) As detailed in
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Stainless Steel Plate From
Sweden (63 FR 67658, December 8, 1998) the Department's intent was to
establish a policy of using the original investigation margin as a
starting point, thus providing interested parties the opportunity and
incentive to come forward with data which would support a different
estimate. In this case, CPC merely argued that the margin from the
original determination was never actually used to assess duties and
that, by the second review, the margin had increased to a level where
it remains today. The import statistics provided by CPC demonstrate
that, after steadily increasing from 1980 to 1983, imports of barium
chloride from China began decreasing with the issuance of the
preliminary and final determinations of sales at less than fair value.
We note that the margin from the original investigation served as the
duty deposit rate until January 1987, when the final results of the
first administrative review were issued. Further, the final results
(the 60.84 percent) of the administrative review covering imports from
October 1985 through September 1986, were issued in January 1989, five
years after the issuance of the order and, at a time when imports had
already decreased to less than 30 percent of the pre-investigation
level of imports. Although the statistics provided by CPC demonstrate a
slight increase in the volume of imports between 1984 and 1985, import
volumes decreased every year thereafter until 1995. Therefore, because
there was no increase in imports of barium chloride from China
corresponding to the increase in the dumping margin, we find CPC's
argument of choosing the rate from the second administrative review
(and current deposit rate) unpersuasive. Therefore, we find no reason
to deviate from our Sunset Policy Bulletin in this review. We determine
that the original margin calculated by the Department, which reflects
the behavior of exporters without the discipline of the order, is
probative of the behavior of the Chinese producers/exporters of barium
chloride. The Department will report to the Commission the company-
specific and ``all others'' rate at the levels indicated in the Final
Results of the Review section of 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
below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Chemicals Import and Export Corporation (SINO-
CHEM)....................................................... 14.50
All Others................................................... 14.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 29, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-2673 Filed 2-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
