[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8491]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 8, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-824]
Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances;
Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Easton or Steve Alley, Office
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1777 or (202) 482-5288, respectively.
PRELIMINARY CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINATION: The Department of
Commerce (DOC) published its preliminary determination of sales at less
than fair value in this investigation on December 8, 1993 (58 FR
64549). On March 1, 1994, petitioner in this investigation alleged that
critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of silicon carbide
from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Since this allegation regarding critical circumstances was filed
later than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary
determination, 19 CFR 353.16(b)(2)(ii) requires that we issue our
preliminary critical circumstances determination not later than 30 days
after the allegation was filed.
Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
``Act''), provides that the Department will determine that there is a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances
exist if:
(A) (i) There is a history of dumping in the United States or
elsewhere of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of
the investigation, or
(ii) The person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the
merchandise which is the subject of the investigation at less than its
fair value, and
(B) There have been massive imports of the class or kind of
merchandise which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively
short period.
History of Dumping
In this investigation, the first criterion of analysis is addressed
in Petitioner's March 1, 1994 submission. Petitioner established that
there is a history of dumping of silicon carbide by the PRC by
providing documentation concerning both a 1986 finding of dumping and a
1993 review of antidumping measures in the European Community. (See
Exhibits 1-3 of petitioner's March 1, 1994 submission).
Inasmuch as we have determined that there is a history of dumping
of the subject merchandise, the Department does not need to determine
whether the importers of this merchandise knew, or should have known,
that the merchandise was being sold at less than fair value.
Massive Imports
Having preliminarily found that there is a history of dumping of
the subject merchandise, we need to consider whether the imports of the
merchandise have been massive.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.16(f) and 353.16(g), the Department
considers the following when determining whether imports have been
massive over a relatively short period of time:
(1) Volume and value of the imports;
(2) Seasonal trends (if applicable); and
(3) The share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports.
When examining volume and value data, the Department typically
compares the export volume for equal periods immediately preceding and
following the filing of the petition (the ``pre-filing period'' and the
``post-filing period''). Under 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), unless the imports
in the comparison period have increased by at least 15 percent over the
imports during the base period, the imports will not be considered to
be ``massive.''
To determine whether there have been massive imports over a
relatively short period of time, the Department examines shipment
information submitted by the respondent or import statistics, when
respondent-specific shipment information is not available. On March 4,
1994, the Department sent letters to respondents requesting information
regarding shipments of silicon carbide for the period of January 1991
to December 1993. All six participating respondents in this
investigation submitted the requested shipment information.
Our analysis is based on the company-specific information supplied
by respondents. Because the timing of the allegation (after the
completion of verification and close to the scheduled date for the
final determination) precluded on-site verification of this
information, the Department also referred to U.S. Customs IM-115 entry
data to corroborate respondents' reported shipment information,
pursuant to section 771(18)(E) of the Act.
To determine whether there have been massive imports of silicon
carbide, we compared export volumes for the five months subsequent to
the filing of the petition (July through November 1993) to the five
months prior to the filing of the petition (February through June
1993). This period of review was selected on the basis of the
Department's practice of using the longest period for which information
is available up until the effective date of the preliminary
determination (which in this investigation was December 8, 1993). We
were unable to consider changes in import penetration, pursuant to 19
CFR 353.16(f)(1)(iii), because the available data did not permit an
analysis of the post-filing period. Nevertheless, based on respondents'
shipment information and U.S. Customs entry data, we find that imports
of silicon carbide from the PRC have been massive over a relatively
short period for two of the respondents in this investigation--Shaanxi
Minmetals (Shaanxi) and Xiamen Abrasives Company (Xiamen). Our finding
is based on determining that imports from Shaanxi and Xiamen increased
more than 15% during the five month post-filing period. The other four
respondents in this investigation--Seventh Grinding Wheel Factory
Import and Export Corporation, Import/Export Trading Corporation of
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Qinghai Metals and Minerals Import
and Export Corporation, and Hainan Feitian Electrontech Company,
Limited--were not responsible for massive imports. (For a summary of
our calculations, see memo to the file of March 28, 1994). For the
Chinese exporters that did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire, we find that imports of silicon carbide from the PRC
were massive, based on the best information otherwise available (BIA).
In conclusion, given that (1) there has been a history of dumping,
and (2) imports from certain respondents have been massive, we
preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for two
respondents in this investigation--Shaanxi and Xiamen. We also
preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for all exporters
who did not participate in this investigation.
FINAL CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINATION: We will make a final
determination concerning critical circumstances when we make our final
determination in this investigation, i.e., by April 22, 1994.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination.
Public Comment
Since this preliminary critical circumstances determination is
being made after the due date for case briefs in this investigation, we
will accept written comments on this preliminary determination of
critical circumstances until April 4, 1994; rebuttal comments must be
submitted no later than April 5, 1994.
This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the
Act.
Dated: March 31, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-8491 Filed 4-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
