[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33148-33149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16282]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Request for Third-Country Antidumping Investigation of Sodium
Azide From Japan
AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.
ACTION: Request for written comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 11, 1996 the Government of Canada, through its
embassy in the United States, filed with the United States Trade
Representative (``USTR'') a request for the initiation of a third-
country antidumping duty investigation with respect to sodium azide
from Japan, pursuant to section 783 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1677n). The petition attached to the request alleges
that imports of sodium azide from Japan are being sold in the United
States at less than fair value (i.e., dumped), and that an industry in
Canada is materially injured and threatened with material injury by
reason of these imports. The petition alleges that ICI Canada Inc. is
the sole Canadian producer of sodium azide. USTR invites comments from
the public on the appropriateness of initiating a section 783
investigation with respect to sodium azide from Japan, on the
substantive and procedural standards USTR should establish for the
determinations of the Department of Commerce and International Trade
Commission (``ITC'') in such an investigation, if initiated, and on
other issues that may be relevant.
DATES: Written comments from the public are due on or before 12 noon,
on July 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Kane, Associate General Counsel, (202) 395-6800.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 232 of the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act of 1994 added section 783 to the Tariff Act of 1930 concerning
antidumping petitions by third countries. Under section 783, the
government of a WTO member may file with USTR a petition requesting
that an investigation be conducted to determine if imports from another
country are being sold in the United States at less than fair value,
and an industry in the petitioning country is materially injured by
reason of those imports. After receiving a petition, USTR must consult
with Commerce and ITC, provide an opportunity for public comment, and
determine whether to initiate an investigation. Before initiating any
investigation, USTR must obtain the approval of the WTO Council for
Trade in Goods. The URAA Statement of Administrative Action (H.R. Doc.
103-316, vol. l1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 845-6) (``SAA'') notes that, in
determining whether to initiate an investigation, USTR will take into
account whether the petitioning country provides an equivalent
opportunity to the United States to seek the initiation of an
antidumping investigation.
Should USTR determine to initiate an investigation, it must request
Commerce and the ITC to make determinations with respect to dumping and
injury, respectively. If both determinations are affirmative, Commerce
must issue an antidumping order in accordance with section 736 of the
Tariff Act.
USTR is to specify the substantive and procedural requirements for
the Commerce and ITC determinations. The SAA indicates that USTR is to
develop consistent, transparent standards of general applicability that
provide meaningful guidance to Commerce and ITC, while according them
the necessary flexibility to develop appropriate procedures. With
regard to procedural issues, USTR is to specify deadlines, persons who
may participate in the investigation, and the applicability of
requirements such as hearings and exchanges of information under
administrative protective order. With regard to substantive issues,
USTR is to specify the extent to which existing antidumping standards
will apply, particularly with regard to the ITC's injury determination.
In the SAA, the Administration stated its intention that the standards
should, to a considerable extent, permit the ITC to incorporate by
analogy existing standards concerning injury to a U.S. industry, but
also noted that certain concepts, such as regional industry, may have
little applicability in third-country investigations.
On January 16, 1996, an antidumping petition was filed on behalf of
American Azide Corporation, the sole U.S. producer of sodium azide,
pursuant to section 732 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
[[Page 33149]]
The petition alleges that sodium azide from Japan is being sold in the
United States at dumped prices and that an industry in the United
States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by
reason of such imports. On March 1, 1996, the ITC issued an affirmative
preliminary injury determination. 61 FR 10596 (March 14, 1996).
Commerce is scheduled to issue a preliminary investigation of dumping
by August 13, 1996. 61 FR 26878 (May 29, 1996).
Public Comment
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
following issues:
(A) whether it is appropriate to initiate a third-country
antidumping investigation on sodium azide from Japan; including as part
of this issue are, inter alia, the relevance of the pending antidumping
investigation on sodium azide from Japan, and the extent to which
Canada provides an opportunity to the United States to seek an
antidumping investigation in Canada on behalf of a U.S. industry.
(B) if an investigation were initiated, what procedural and
substantive standards USTR should establish for Commerce's and ITC's
determinations required by section 783; persons submitting comments on
this issue may wish simply to use as a starting point the existing
standards for antidumping investigations on behalf of a U.S. industry,
and specify how the procedural and substantive standards for a third-
country antidumping investigation should differ.
(C) any other issues relevant to the request for the initiation of
a third-country antidumping investigation on sodium azide from Japan.
Requirements for Submissions
Comments are due no later than 12 noon, July 26, 1996. Comments
must be in English and provided in twenty copies to: Sodium Azide
Antidumping, Room 223, USTR, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20508.
Comments will be placed in a file (Docket 783-1) open to public
inspection, except for confidential business information exempt from
public inspection. (Confidential business information must be clearly
marked ``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' in a contrasting color ink at the top
of each page on each of 20 copies, and must be accompanied by a
nonconfidential summary of the confidential information. The
nonconfidential summary shall be placed in the Docket which is open to
public inspection.) USTR will generally apply to the standards set out
in 15 C.F.R. Sec. 2006.13 (Information Open to Public Inspection) and
Sec. 2006.15 (Information Exemption from Public Inspection) with
respect to comments received.
Jennifer A. Hillman,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-16282 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
