[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67654-67656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32537]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-056]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Melamine, in Crystal
Form, From Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Melamine,
in Crystal Form, from Japan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 3, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding on
melamine, in crystal form, from Japan (63 FR 41227) 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
finding would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping at the levels indicated in the Magnitude of the Margin 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1998.
[[Page 67655]]
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 finding is melamine, in
crystal form, from Japan. Melamine, in crystal form, is a fine white
crystalline powder used to manufacture melamine formaldehyde resins,
currently classifiable under 2933.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
On February 28, 1997 (62 FR 9176), melamine, in crystal form, with
special physical characteristics (100% of the particles are smaller
than 10 microns) was determined to be within the scope of the order.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of melamine, in
crystal form, from Japan.
Background
On August 3, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping finding on melamine, in crystal form, from Japan (63 FR
41227), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received
a Notice of Intent to Participate from Melamine Chemicals Inc.
(``MCI'') on August 14, 1998, within the deadline specified in section
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. MCI claimed interested
party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a United States
manufacturer of melamine. We received a complete substantive response
from MCI on September 1, 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 section 751(c)(3)(B) of the
Act and our regulations (19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), the
Department determined to conduct an expedited review.
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping finding 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
finding, and shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail
if the finding 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).
The antidumping finding on melamine, in crystal form, from Japan
was published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 73-54 (42 FR
6366, February 2, 1977). Since that time, the Department has conducted
several administrative reviews. The finding remains in effect for all
imports from all manufacturers of melamine, in crystal form, from
Japan.
In its substantive response, MCI argues that ``there is a strong
likelihood that dumping by Japanese producers (of melamine) would
resume'' if the antidumping finding were revoked (See Substantive
Response, September 1, 1998). With respect to whether dumping continued
at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the finding, MCI
asserts that, as documented in the final results of reviews reached by
Treasury and the Department, when Japanese shipments to the United
States market were examined, dumping margins of 60 and 70.22% were
found. MCI states that the conclusion to be drawn from these dumping
margins is that respondents in this case have been unable or unwilling
to restructure their operations so as to sell melamine in the United
States at fair value. Furthermore, MCI asserts that competitive pricing
pressures and global market conditions for melamine, in crystal form,
are such that any future sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States would likely be at less than fair value. It argues in its
substantive response, as well as in previous submissions to the
Department, that there is, and has been, excess production capacity in
both the U.S. and Japanese melamine industries. According to MCI, this
excess capacity has prompted Japanese melamine producers to sell their
products in Southeast Asian, Australian, and Iranian markets at less
than fair value. MCI asserts that revocation of the finding would allow
the Japanese producers to take similar actions in the United States.
With respect to import volumes, MCI had indicated that there has
been a cessation of exports of the subject merchandise to the United
States. The final results from the three most recent administrative
reviews indicate that there were no shipments of melamine, in crystal
form, from Japan.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As indicated in 47 FR 23507, May, 28. 1983; 47 FR 44597,
October 8, 1982; and 48 FR 38527, August 24, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the administrative reviews conducted by the Department over the
life of this finding, only one firm ever reported
shipments.2 In each of the subsequent reviews, the
Department
[[Page 67656]]
determined that there were no shipments from any of the known exporters
of melamine from Japan.3 We find, therefore, that the
cessation of imports after the issuance of the finding and the
existence of dumping margins after the issuance of the finding are
highly probative of the likelihood of continuation of dumping. Deposit
rates above de minimis levels continue in effect for exports by all
known Japanese exporters of melamine, in crystal form. As discussed in
Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the
House Report at 63-64, if imports cease after the order is issued, we
may reasonably assume that the exporters could not sell in the United
States without dumping and that, to reenter the U.S. market, they would
have to resume dumping. Furthermore, if companies continue to dump with
the discipline of an order in place, we may reasonably assume that
dumping would continue if the discipline were removed. Therefore,
absent argument and evidence to the contrary and, given that exports of
the subject merchandise have ceased and dumping margins above de
minimis continue in effect, the Department determines that dumping is
likely to continue or recur if the finding were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Melamine in Crystal Form From Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 46 FR 15305 (March 5,
1981).
\3\ See Melamine in Crystal Form From Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 23507 (May 28,
1982), Melamine in Crystal Form From Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 44597 (October
8, 1982), Melamine in Crystal Form From Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 38527 (August
24, 1983), and Melamine in Crystal Form From Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding and Determination Not
To Revoke; 49 FR 32634 (August 14, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Department based this determination on the cessation of
dumping and the continued existence of margins above de minimis, it is
not necessary to address MCI's arguments concerning competitive pricing
pressures, global market conditions, or excess U.S. production capacity
in this notice.
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, in a
sunset review of an antidumping finding for which no company-specific
margin or all others rate is included in the Treasury finding published
in the Federal Register, the Department normally will provide to the
Commission the company-specific margin from the first final results of
administrative review published in the Federal Register by the
Department. Additionally, if the first final results do not contain a
margin for a particular company, the Department normally will provide
the Commission, as the margin for that company, the first ``new
shipper'' rate established by the Department for that finding. (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).
Treasury did publish a weighted-average dumping margin in this
finding for Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. of 60 percent (41 FR
41727, September 23, 1976). However, Treasury did not publish a ``new
shipper'' rate or a rate for any other company exporting subject
merchandise in this or any subsequent determination. Under these
circumstances, the Department normally will provide the Commission, as
the margin for any new company not reviewed by Treasury, the first
``new shipper'' rate established by the Department for that finding.
The first ``new shipper'' rate established by the Department was 70.22
percent (47 FR 23507, May 28, 1982).
In its substantive response, MCI suggests that the Department
choose the 60% dumping margin originally imposed by Treasury for Nissan
Chemical Industries, Ltd. In addition, according to MCI, the Department
should select the 70.22% dumping margin for other companies applied by
the Department in subsequent administrative reviews.
We agree with MCI and, consistent with the policy, we determine
that the original margins calculated by the Department and Treasury are
probative of the behavior of the Japanese manufacturers and exporters
of melamine, in crystal form. We will report to the Commission the
company-specific and ``all other's'' margins contained in the Final
Results section of this notice.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan Chemicals, Ltd..................................... 60
All Others................................................ 70.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: December 1, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-32537 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P