[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16910-16913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8622]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-825]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Sebacic Acid 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: Sebacic
Acid from the People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 2, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on
sebacic acid from the People's Republic of China (63 FR 66527) 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 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: April 7, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of
the Act.
[[Page 16911]]
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 sebacic acid
(all grades), a dicarboxylic acid with the formula
(CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but are
not limited to CP Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA color),
Purified Grade (1000ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color), and Nylon
Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color). The principal
difference between the grades is the quantity of ash and color. Sebacic
acid contains a minimum of 85 percent dibasic acids of which the
predominant species is the C10 dibasic acid. Sebacic acid is
sold generally as a free-flowing powder/flake.
Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, including the production
of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and toothbrush bristles
and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive coolants,
polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and adhesives,
lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings.
Sebacic acid is currently classifiable under subheading
2917.13.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). The HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and U.S.
Customs purposes. The written product description of the scope of this
order remains dispositive.
This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of
Chinese sebacic acid.
Background
On December 2, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping order on sebacic acid from the People's Republic of
China (63 FR 66527), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of
Union Camp Corporation (``Union Camp'') on December 8, 1998, within the
deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset
Regulations. Union Camp claimed interested party status under 19 U.S.C.
1677(9)(C) as a domestic producer of sebacic acid. In addition, Union
Camp indicated that it is the sole domestic producer of sebacic acid
and was the original petitioner in the underlying investigation. We
received a complete substantive response from Union Camp on January 4,
1999, 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 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department
determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
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 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 respondent interested party. Pursuant to section
351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver
of participation.
The antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the People's
Republic of China was published in the Federal Register on July 14,
1994 (59 FR 35909). Since this time, the Department has conducted three
administrative reviews.1 The order remains in effect for all
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Sebacic Acid from The People's Republic of China; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 10530
(March 7, 1997); Sebacic Acid from The People's Republic of China;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674
(December 15, 1997); and Sebacic Acid from The People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63
FR 43373 (August 13, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, Union Camp argues that revocation of
the order will likely lead to increased imports of sebacic acid from
the PRC at dumped prices (see January 4, 1999 Substantive Response of
Union Camp at 3). With respect to whether dumping continued at any
level above de minimis after the issuance of the order, Union Camp
states that for each of the participating companies, dumping has
continued after the issuance of the order (see January 4, 1999
Substantive Response of Union Camp at 4). Union Camp notes that during
the first and second administrative reviews, Tianjin Chemicals Import &
Export Corp.'s dumping margin was zero and, during the third
administrative review, SINOCHEM International Chemical Co.'s dumping
margin was de minimis.
[[Page 16912]]
Union Camp argues, however, as stated in the Sunset Policy Bulletin,
that a zero or de minimis margin, in itself, will not require the
Department to determine that continuation or recurrence is not likely.
In addition, Union Camp asserts that Chinese sebacic acid is being
dumped in the European market. By comparing Union Camp's current
selling price in the European Union to the Chinese selling price (based
on information received from Union Camp's European customers and
publicly quoted unit prices), Union Camp believes that sebacic acid of
Chinese origin is being dumped in Europe. Furthermore, Union Camp
asserts that this fact suggests that if the U.S. dumping order on
Chinese sebacic acid were revoked, Chinese exporters of sebacic acid
would likely reduce their sales prices and increase their dumping in
the U.S.
With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased
after the issuance of the order, Union Camp, citing Commerce IM145
reports, argues that imports of Chinese sebacic acid dropped
significantly with the imposition of dumping duties under the order in
1994 and continued to decline in 1995. Union Camp notes that, during
1996 and 1997, imports of the subject merchandise increased slightly,
however, it asserts this increase can most likely be attributed to an
increase in the domestic consumption of sebacic acid beginning in 1995.
In conclusion, Union Camp argued that the Department should
determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were
the order revoked because (1) dumping margins have existed for most
known exporters of the subject merchandise during the entire life of
the order, (2) it believes that Chinese sebacic acid is being dumped in
Europe and (3) shipments of subject merchandise have also continued
throughout the life of the order and this suggests that, if the U.S.
order were revoked, dumping of subject merchandise would increase in
the U.S.
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. Although two of the four known Chinese producers have, at
various times over the life of the order, received zero or de minimis
margins, none has consistently eliminated dumping while increasing or
maintaining market share. Dumping margins above de minimis levels
continue to exist for shipments of the subject merchandise from three
of the four known Chinese producers.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Sebacic Acid from The People's Republic of China; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, August 13, 1998
(63 FR 43373).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the
order. The import statistics provided by Union Camp, and confirmed by
the Department, on imports of the subject merchandise between 1992 and
1997, demonstrate that, while imports of the subject merchandise fell
sharply after the imposition of the order, they continue.
Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of
dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Deposit rates
above a de minimis level continue in effect for exports of the subject
merchandise by three of the four known Chinese manufacturers/exporters.
Therefore, given that dumping has continued over the life of the order,
respondent interested parties have waived their right to participate in
this review before the Department and, absent argument and evidence to
the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is likely to
continue if the order were revoked.
Because the Department based this determination on the continued
existence of margins above de minimis, the continuation of dumped
imports and respondent interested parties' waiver of participation, it
is not necessary to address Union Camp's arguments concerning possible
dumping of Chinese sebacic acid in Europe.
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, in its final determination of sales at less than
fair value, published weighted-average dumping margins for four Chinese
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise ranging from 82.66
percent to 243.40 percent (59 FR 28053, May 31, 1994).3 The
Department also published an ``all others'' rate in this final
determination.4 We note that, to date, the Department has
not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pursuant to court remand, several of the company-specific
margins were changed (see Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Union Camp Corporation v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 94-08-00480, Slip Op. 96-123 (August 5, 1996)).
\4\ The Department actually published a ``PRC country-wide
rate'' and defined this as the rate that applies to all PRC
companies not specifically listed in the Federal Register notice
(see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sebacic Acid from The People's Republic of The People's Republic of
China, 59 FR 28053 (May 31, 1994)). This definition indicates that
the ``PRC country-wide rate'', in this case, is the same as the
``all others'' rate normally identified by the Department. In
addition, pursuant to court remand, this ``all others'' rate was
changed (see Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Union Camp Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No.
94-08-00480, Slip Op. 96-123 (August 5, 1996)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, citing the Sunset Policy Bulletin,
Union Camp states that the Department normally will provide the
Commission with the dumping margins ``from the investigation, because
that is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of
exporters . . . without the discipline of the order . . . in place.''
Union Camp argues that the Department, consistent with the Sunset
Policy Bulletin, should provide the Commission with the final margins
from the original investigation as the magnitude of dumping margin
likely to prevail if the order were revoked (see January 4, 1999
Substantive Response of Union Camp at 7).
The Department agrees with Union Camp's argument concerning the
choice of the margin rate to report to the Commission. An examination
of the margin history of the order as well as an examination of import
statistics of the subject merchandise, as provided in U.S. Department
of Commerce Trade Statistics data, confirms that imports of the subject
merchandise continue to exist.
Our review of the margin history over the life of the order
demonstrates that there have been fluctuations in the margins for some
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The Department,
however, does not view these fluctuations as demonstrating a consistent
pattern of behavior. Therefore, in accordance with the Sunset Policy
Bulletin and absent an argument that a more recently
[[Page 16913]]
calculated margin is more indicative of the margin likely to prevail if
the order were revoked, we determine that the original margins
calculated in the Department's original investigation are probative of
the behavior of Chinese producers and exporters of sebacic acid if the
order were revoked. We will report to the Commission the company-
specific and all others rates 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 likely lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping at the margins listed below: 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The margins in this section of the notice reflect the
changes to the original margins pursuant to court remand (see Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Union Camp
Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 94-08-00480, Slip
Op. 96-123 (August 5, 1996)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINOCHEM Jiangsu Import & Export Corp.................. 141.97
Tianjin Chemical Import & Export Corp.................. 118.00
SINOCHEM International Chemical Co..................... 82.66
Guangdong Chemical Import & Export Corp................ 102.99
All Others............................................. 243.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: April 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-8622 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
