[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11440-11442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5793]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-002]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Chloropicrin from the
People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review:
chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 2, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on
chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China (63 FR 58709) 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 substantive
comments 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 the 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 Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
Effective Date: March 9, 1999.
supplementary information:
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 order is chloropicrin,
also known as trichloronitromethane. A major use of the product is as a
pre-plant soil fumigant (pesticide). Such merchandise is currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number
2904.90.50. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and U.S.
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of
chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').
Background
On November 2, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping order on chloropicrin from the PRC (63 FR 58709),
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice
of Intent to Participate on behalf of ASHTA Chemicals, Inc., HoltraChem
Manufacturing Company, L.L.C., Niklor Chemical Company, Inc., and
Trinity Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively ``the domestic interested
parties''), on November 13, 1998, 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 a domestic like product. The domestic interested
parties note that LCP Chemicals & Plastics, Inc. (``LCP'') 1
and Niklor Chemical Company, Inc. filed the original petition in this
proceeding. We received a complete substantive response from the
domestic interested parties on December 2, 1998, within the 30-day
deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section
351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a substantive response from any
respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant
to 19
[[Page 11441]]
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct an
expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Hanlin Group, Inc., the parent company of LCP, continued
to participate in this case until 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-averaged
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 order, and
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 the magnitude of the margin are discussed
below. In addition, parties' comments with respect to 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).
In addition to guidance on likelihood provided in the Sunset Policy
Bulletin and legislative history, section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act
provides that the Department shall determine that revocation of an
order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping where
a respondent interested party waives its participation in the sunset
review. In the instant review, the Department did not receive a
response from any interested party. Pursuant to section
351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver
of participation.
The antidumping order on chloropicrin from the PRC was published in
the Federal Register on March 22, 1984 (49 FR 10691). Since the
imposition of the order, the Department has conducted one
administrative review.2 The order remains in effect for all
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China; Final
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order, 50 FR 2844
(January 22, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The domestic interested parties argue that the Department should
determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were
the order revoked for four reasons. First, according to the domestic
interested parties, imports of the subject merchandise ceased after
imposition of the order. The domestic interested parties argue that,
according to the Commission's final determination in March, 1984,
imports of chloropicrin ceased in September 1983 after the Department's
preliminary antidumping determination.3 Second, there are
significant imports to the United States of nitromethane from the PRC,
a product that is used in the production of chloropicrin. The domestic
interested parties argue that this indicates that the PRC producers
have the immediate ability and interest to export chloropicrin to the
United States and sell it at less than fair value. Third, chloropicrin
is a price-competitive, commodity-type product which could provide an
opportunity for PRC producers to capture a large percentage of the
market if the order were revoked. And finally, a dumping margin of 58
percent on imports of PRC chloropicrin continues in effect for all PRC
exporters (see December 2, 1998, Substantive Response of the Domestic
Interested Parties at 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Chloropicrin From the People's Republic of China, Inv.
731-TA-130 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 1505 (March 1984) at A-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In making its determination, the Department considers the existence
of dumping margins and the volume of imports before and after the
issuance of the order. As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset
Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if
companies continue dumping with the discipline of an order in place,
the Department may reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the
discipline were removed. In the instant proceeding, a dumping margin
above de minimis continues to exist for shipments of the subject
merchandise from The China National Chemicals Import and Export
Corporation (``SINOCHEM'') and William Hunt & Co. of Hong Kong, a third
country reseller.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The dumping margin for both SINOCHEM and William Hunt & Co.
is 58 percent. See Chloropicrin from The People's Republic of China;
Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order; 50 FR
2844 (January 22, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also reviewed data on the volume of imports before
and after issuance of the order, consistent with section 752(c) of the
Act. The Department examined U.S. Census data (IM146 reports) for the
years preceding the imposition of the order through the present. This
information demonstrates that exports of chloropicrin from the PRC
decreased sharply after the imposition of the order. In 1982, exports
of the subject merchandise to the United States exceeded 1.25 million
kilograms and, in 1983, exports of the subject merchandise to the
United States exceeded 2.45 million kilograms. However, in 1985, the
year after the imposition of the order, this volume fell to zero. In
the years following the imposition of the order, exports of
chloropicrin to the United States never reached their pre-order level
and have, for the majority of the interim years, remained below 200,000
kilograms per year. Based on this analysis, the Department finds that
the imports of the subject merchandise have fallen significantly since
the imposition of the order.
We find the existence of deposit rates above de minimis levels and
the reduction in export volumes over the life of the order is highly
probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping.5 Dumping margins continue in effect for exports of
the subject merchandise by all known PRC exporters and third country
resellers. Given that dumping margins have continued over the life of
the order, respondent interested parties waived participation in the
sunset review, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the
[[Page 11442]]
Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the order
were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, state that
the ``[e]xistence 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Department based this determination on the continued
existence of margins above de minimis and respondent interested
parties' waiver of participation, it is not necessary to address the
domestic interested parties' arguments concerning non-U.S. export
markets, exports of nitromethane, or the price-competitive nature of
chloropicrin.
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 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.)
The Department published, in the Federal Register, the antidumping
duty order for chloropicrin from the PRC on March 22, 1984 (49 FR
10691). In this order, the Department established a weighted-averaged
margin for SINOCHEM of 58 percent. Also, in this order, the Department
established a weighted-averaged margin for any other manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise of 58 percent.6 We note
that, to date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption
findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Chloropicrin from the People's
Republic of China, 49 FR 10691 (March 22, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, the domestic interested parties
recommended that, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department provide to the Commission the original dumping margin of 58
percent established by the Department for all PRC manufacturers/
exporters of chloropicrin.
The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'
argument concerning the choice of the margin to report to the
Commission. In the original investigation, the Department calculated a
margin for SINOCHEM and established an ``all others'' rate for the
remaining companies. The margin from the original investigation is the
only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without
the discipline of the order. Therefore, consistent with the Sunset
Policy Bulletin, we will report to the Commission the company-specific
rate for SINOCHEM and the ``all others'' rate from the original
investigation for all remaining companies as the dumping margin likely
to prevail if the order were revoked. These margins are contained 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 order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINOCHEM................................................... 58.0
All Other Manufacturers/Exporters.......................... 58.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: March 3, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-5793 Filed 3-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
