[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48360-48362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23048]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-485-601]
Final Result of Expedited Sunset Review: Solid Urea from Romania
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Result of Expedited Sunset Review on Solid Urea
from Romania.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order
on solid urea from Romania 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 adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of the
domestic interested parties and inadequate response (in this case, no
response) from respondent interested parties, the Department determined
to conduct an expedited sunset 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: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G.
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. &
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050
or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
This review was conducted pursuant to section 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 the antidumping duty order is solid urea
from Romania. Solid urea is a high-nitrogen content fertilizer which is
produced by reacting ammonia with carbon dioxide. During the original
investigation the merchandise was classified under item number 480.3000
of the Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (``TSUSA''). This
merchandise is currently classifiable under item number 3102.10.00 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS''). The HTS item number is
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description
of the scope remains dispositive.
History of the Order
On May 26, 1987, the Department issued its final determination that
solid urea from Romania was being sold in the United States at less-
than-fair-value. The weighted-average dumping margin
[[Page 48361]]
was 90.71 percent.1 On July 14, 1987, the Department's
antidumping duty order was published.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Urea From the Socialist Republic of Romania; Final
Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value, 52 FR 19557 (May 26,
1987).
\2\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Urea From the Socialist Republic
of Romania, 52 FR 26367 (July 14, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has conducted one administrative review since the
issuance of this order, covering the period January 1987 through June
1988, and found no shipments.3 The order remains in effect
for all Romanian producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. We
note that, to date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption
findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Solid Urea From Romania, 54 FR 39558 (September 27, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On March 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping order on solid urea from Romania pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Act. On March 16, 1999, the Department received a Notice of
Intent to Participate on behalf of Agrium US, Inc. (``Agrium'') and
from the members of the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen Producers
4 (the ``Committee''), collectively the (``domestic
parties''), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i)
of the Sunset Regulations. We received complete substantive responses
from the domestic parties, within the 30-day deadline specified in the
Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). The domestic parties
claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as
United States producers, manufacturers, or wholesalers of the domestic
like product. The Department did not receive a response from any
respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and our regulations (19 C.F.R.
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), we are conducting an expedited sunset review
on this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Committee maintains that it is comprised of a coalition
of U.S. producers of nitrogen fertilizers and identifies its current
members : CF Industries, Inc., Costal Chemical, Inc., Mississippi
Chemical Corp., PCS Nitrogen, Inc., and Terra Industries, Inc. The
Committee notes that J.R. Simplot Co. is a Committee member, but not
producer of solid urea. See Substantive Response of the Committee,
March 30, 1999, at 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset review
of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from Romania is
extraordinarily complicated. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v)
of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily
complicated if it is a review of a transition order (i.e., an order in
effect on January 1, 1995). See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. As a
result of this determination, the Department extended the time limit
for completion of the final results of this review until not later than
August 30, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the
Act.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year
Reviews, 54 FR 36333 (July 6, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 likely 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 the margin are discussed below.
In addition, the domestic interested parties' comments with respect to
the 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 basis for
likelihood determinations. The Department indicated that determinations
of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). In addition, 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).
In addition to considering the guidance on likelihood cited above,
section751(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 it
participation in the sunset review. In the instant review, the
Department did not receive a response from any respondent interest
party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset
Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
In their substantive responses the domestic parties assert that
revocation of the antidumping duty order of solid urea from Romania
would likely result in the continuation or resumption of dumping. The
domestic parties argue that imports of the subject merchandise ceased
after the issuance of the order and provide import statistics to
support their claim.
The domestic parties maintain that the Department should conclude
that because imports of Romanian urea into the United States ceased
after the issuance of the order, Romanian producers and exporters
cannot sell solid urea in the U.S. markets without dumping.
In addition, the domestic parties argue that the dumping margin of
90.71 percent has remained unchanged since the investigation. The
domestic parties assert that no Romanian urea producer or exporter has
ever sought a review to obtain a reduced margin. Therefore, the
domestic parties assert, the magnitude and longevity of the original
antidumping margin indicates that Romania urea cannot be sold in the
U.S. market at non-dumped prices.
For the reasons stated above, the domestic parties conclude that if
the order on solid urea from Romania be revoked, there is likelihood of
continuation and recurrence of dumping.
As discussed in Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, existence of dumping margins
after the order is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation
or recurrence of dumping. Further, if imports ceased after the order is
issued, it is reasonable to assume that the exporters could not sell in
the United States without
[[Page 48362]]
dumping and that to reenter the U.S. market, they would have to resume
dumping. In this case we find that imports ceased after the issuance of
the order and dumping margins continued to exist. Therefore, given that
imports ceased, dumping margins continue to exist, respondent
interested parties waived their right to participate in this review,
and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department
determines that dumping of solid urea from Romania is likely to
continue or recur if the 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 country-wide rate from the
investigation. (See section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)
Exceptions to this policy permit the use of a more recently calculated
margin, when appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption
determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin.)
With respect to the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if
the antidumping duty orders were revoked, the domestic parties argue
that the Department should provide the Commission the dumping margin
from the final results of the original investigation, 90.71 percent.
The domestic parties assert that this margin is the only rate that has
been calculated by the Department and it is the only rate that reflects
the behavior of Romanian producers and exporters of urea without the
discipline of the order.
The Department agrees with the domestic parties concerning the
choice of the dumping margin to report to the Commission. In our final
determination of sales at less-than-fair-value, we reported a weighted-
average dumping margin of 90.71 percent for I.C.E. Chimica ( the only
company investigated) and for all others. Therefore, consistent with
the Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin we determine that the original
margin, is probative of the behavior of the Romanian producers and
exporters of solid urea if the order were revoked. We will report to
the Commission the rate from the original investigation 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
Manufacturers/ Exporters (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.C.E. Chimica............................................. 90.71
All Others................................................. 90.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 published in
accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 30, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-23048 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
