[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5631-5633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2676]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-098]
Final Result of Expedited Sunset Review: Anhydrous Sodium
Metasilicate From France
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final result of expedited sunset review: Anhydrous
sodium metasilicate from France.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated sunset review of the antidumping duty order on
anhydrous sodium metasilicate from France (63 FR 52683) pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On
the bases of the notice of intent to participate and substantive
comments filed on behalf of the domestic industry, and inadequate
responses (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 duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of
Review section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Smith or Melissa G. Skinner,
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution
Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397 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 subject to this antidumping duty order is
anhydrous sodium metasilicate (``ASM''), a crystallized silicate (Na2
SiO3) which is alkaline and readily soluble in water. Applications
include waste paper de-inking, ore-flotation, bleach stabilization,
clay processing, medium or heavy duty cleaning, and compounding into
other detergent formulations. The Department determined that ASM mixed
with caustic soda beads or with sodium tripolyphosphate is within the
scope of the order.1 This merchandise is currently
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) item numbers 2839.11.00 and 2839.19.00. The HTSUS
item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only.
They are not determinative of the products subject to the order. The
written description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results
of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 15620
(April 12, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of ASM from
France.
Background: On October 1, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset
review of the antidumping duty order on ASM from France (63 FR 52683),
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice
of Intent to Participate on behalf of PQ Corporation (``PQ'') within
the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset
Regulations. PQ claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C)
of the Act, section 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(E), as a manufacturer, producer,
or wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like product. On
October 29, 1998, PQ Corporation requested an extension of time for
submission of its substantive response to the notice of initiation and
was granted an extension until November 3, 1998 (see October 30, 1998,
letter from Acting Director, Office of Policy). On October 30, 1998, we
received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Occidental
Chemical Corporation (``Occidental''), which claimed interested party
status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(E), as a
manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a
domestic like product. We received a complete substantive response from
PQ on November 3, 1998, within the extended deadline. PQ's substantive
response contained a letter of support from Occidental. We did not
receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party to
this sunset proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B)
of the Act and our regulations (19 CFR 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 duty 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 duty
order, and it shall provide to the International Trade Commission
(``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to
prevail if the order is revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and magnitude of margin are discussed below. In
addition, parties' comments with respect to continuation or recurrence
of dumping and the magnitude of margin are
[[Page 5632]]
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).
On January 7, 1981, an antidumping duty order on ASM from France
was published in the Federal Register (46 FR 1667). Since that time,
the Department has conducted a number of administrative reviews on this
order.2 The order remains in effect for all imports of the
subject merchandise from France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results
of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 15620
(April 2, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR
44594 (October 8, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;
Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 49
FR 43733 (October 31, 1984); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From
France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53
FR 4195 (February 12, 1988); Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France, 52
FR 33856 (September 8, 1987); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From
France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53
FR 9785 (March 25, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 43251
(October 26, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 50788
(December 11, 1989); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 42979
(August 30, 1991); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 49684
(November 3, 1992); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 51615
(October 4, 1993); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 8631
(February 15, 1995); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 30852
(June 18, 1996); and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 44038
(August 27, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, PQ stated that following the
imposition of the antidumping duty, Rhone Poulenc/Rhodia ceased
exporting ASM from France. PQ noted that Rhone Poulenc/Rhodia kept its
sales network in place as well as much of its distribution network and
entered into an agreement with a U.S. producer to distribute U.S.-
manufactured ASM to fill out its product line. PQ stated that Rhone
Poulenc/Rhodia has excess ASM production capacity. PQ argued,
therefore, that absent the existence of the order, Rhodia will resume
exporting ASM from France. PQ asserted that because demand for ASM has
been decreasing over time and there is excess production capacity in
the United States as well as Europe, any market shift would most likely
be due to a lower price offered by the seller of the imported product.
PQ further asserted that, because of the low value-to-weight ratio, and
because of the high cost of freight for ASM, all things being equal, no
French producer could compete in the U.S. market without sales at less
than fair value.
As noted above, the Department has conducted several administrative
reviews of this order covering the only known exporter Rhone-Poulenc.
In the administrative reviews of the periods spanning November 1, 1980
through December 31, 1981, January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1988,
and January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990, the Department found no
shipments of ASM from France.3 Further, because Rhone-
Poulenc did not respond to questionnaires in the administrative reviews
of the periods spanning January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1995, the
Department has no information from the reviews with respect to whether
there were any imports of ASM from France.4 Finally, the
Department terminated the administrative reviews of the periods
spanning January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997, based on the
absence of entries.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results
of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 15620
(April 12, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR
44594 (October 8, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 9785
(March 25, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 43251
(October 26, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 50788
(December 11, 1989); and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 42979
(August 30, 1991).
\4\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 49684 (November 3,
1992); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 51615 (October 4,
1993); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 8631 (February 15,
1995); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 30852 (June 18, 1996);
and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 44038 (August 27,
1996).
\5\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Notice of
Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 43701
(August 15, 1997); and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;
Notice of Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR
31179 (June 10, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find, therefore, that the cessation of imports after the
issuance of the order is highly probative of the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping. Furthermore, deposit rates above
de minimis levels continue to be in effect for all shipments of the
subject merchandise from France. 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, absent argument and evidence to the contrary, given that
shipments of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of the
order, and that dumping margins continue to exist, the Department,
consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin,
determines that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the
antidumping duty order were revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin: In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department stated that it will normally provide to the Commission the
margin that was determined in the final determination in the original
investigation. Further, 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
[[Page 5633]]
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 the Department's final determination of sales at less than fair
value on ASM from France, the Department established an antidumping
margin of 60.00 percent (see Anhydrous Sodium Metasillicate From
France--Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 45 FR
77498 (November 24, 1980) and Anhydrous Sodium Metasillicate From
France; Antidumping Duty Order, 46 FR 1667 (January 7, 1981)).
In its substantive response, PQ asserted that because of the high
cost of freight for ASM, no French producer could compete in the U.S.
market without having sales at less than fair value. Although PQ did
not specify the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order
were revoked, it submitted information for ``computations of export
price or constructed export price and normal value, based on realistic
assumption.'' (See Substantive Response of PQ, November 2, 1998, at 2
and attachment.)
The SAA at 891, House Report at 64, and section 351.218(e)(2)(i) of
the Sunset Regulations provide that, only in the context of a full
sunset review and only under the most extraordinary circumstances will
the Department rely on a countervailing duty rate or dumping margin
other than those it calculated and published in its prior
determinations. The Department, on the basis of inadequate responses
(in this case, no response), determined to conduct an expedited review
of this duty order. Only in full reviews will the Department consider
the calculation of new margins. Further, even if the Department had
determined to conduct a full review of this order, it is not persuaded
by the evidence presented by PQ that such extraordinary circumstances
exist in this case as to warrant the calculation of a new dumping
margin.
Therefore, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine
that the original margin we calculated, which reflects the behavior of
exporters without the discipline of the order, is probative of the
behavior of the French producers and exporters of ASM. The Department
will report to the Commission the company-specific and ``all others''
rate at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of
this notice.
Final Results of Review: As a result of this review, the Department
finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated
below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturers/exporters (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhone-Poulenc................................................ 60.00
All Others................................................... 60.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 29, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-2676 Filed 2-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
