[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