[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 848-851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-242]



[[Page 848]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-047]


Elemental Sulphur From Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review of elemental sulphur from Canada.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on elemental 
sulphur from Canada in response to requests from the petitioner, 
Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur, Inc. (``Freeport''), and the respondent, 
Husky Oil, Ltd. (``Husky''). The period of review (``POR'') is from 
December 1, 1996 through November 30, 1997.
    We preliminarily determine that respondent, Husky, has sold subject 
merchandise at not less than normal value (``NV'') during the POR. 
Husky has requested revocation from the order, but, as explained in the 
Revocation section below, we preliminarily determine that Husky has not 
met the threshold requirements to be considered for revocation. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service not to 
assess antidumping duties on suspended entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding 
should also submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Rick Johnson, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-3818, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351, 62 FR 
27296 (May 19, 1997).

Background

    On December 17, 1973, the Department of the Treasury published in 
the Federal Register (38 FR 34655) the antidumping finding on elemental 
sulphur from Canada. On December 5, 1997, the Department published in 
the Federal Register (62 FR 64353) a notice of opportunity to request 
an administrative review of this antidumping finding for the period 
December 1, 1996 through November 31, 1997.
    On December 31, 1997, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), 
Freeport requested that we conduct an administrative review of Husky 
and any other company that exported Husky-produced sulphur to the 
United States during the POR. Also, on December 31, 1997, Husky 
requested that we conduct an administrative review and further 
requested that the Department revoke the antidumping order as to Husky. 
We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review on January 26, 1998 (63 FR 3702). On June 26, 
1998, petitioner submitted a request that the deadline for the 
preliminary results in this review be extended by 75 days in order to 
develop the administrative record with respect to revocation. On July 
29, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register an extension 
of the deadline for the preliminary results of review to November 1, 
1998 (63 FR 40391). On August 19, 1998, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a further extension of the deadline for the 
preliminary results of review to December 31, 1998 (63 FR 44420). The 
Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with 
section 751 of the Act. As outlined below, we preliminarily determine a 
de minimis margin of 0.37 percent for Husky, but that Husky has not met 
the threshold requirement to be considered for revocation.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, from September 23, 1998 
to October 2, 1998, we verified sales and cost information provided by 
Husky, using standard verification procedures, including an examination 
of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of original 
documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results 
are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports and are 
on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') located in room B-099 of 
the main Department of Commerce Building, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. For changes to Husky's costs based on 
verification findings, see Calculation of CV section below.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of elemental sulphur 
from Canada. This merchandise is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (``HTS'') subheadings 2503.10.00, 2503.90.00, and 2802.00.00. 
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for U.S. 
Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of 
this order remains dispositive. The POR is December 1, 1996 through 
November 30, 1997.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the Scope of the Review section above, which were 
produced and sold by the respondent in the home market during the POR, 
to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. For all of Husky's U.S. sales, there 
were identical sales in the home market on which to base comparisons.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, 
when NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from 
which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses 
and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level of the starting-price 
sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, it 
is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the 
affiliated importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an

[[Page 849]]

LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 
sales (which we note is not the case for Husky), if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and 
CEP sales affect price comparability, we adjust NV under section 
773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In the present review, Husky did not request a LOT adjustment or 
CEP offset. To ensure that no such adjustment was necessary, in 
accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information 
regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and 
Canadian markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, 
and selling expenses.
    In the home market, Husky reported that it sold through one sales 
channel: to end-users. The selling functions associated with this 
channel included inventory maintenance, freight and delivery 
arrangements, and credit services. Hence, we preliminarily determine 
that there is one LOT in the home market.
    In the U.S. market, Husky reported two sales channels: (1) To end-
users; and (2) to resellers. Husky's U.S. sales through the second 
sales channel were made via a Canadian reseller. Husky knows that sales 
through this channel are destined for the U.S. market, hence, Husky 
classifies all its sales in the reseller sales channel as U.S. sales. 
We examined the selling functions performed for each of the two U.S. 
sales channels. Both sales channels involved inventory maintenance, 
freight and delivery arrangements, and credit services. Based on the 
above information, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in 
the United States.
    Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales 
in the home market and EP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily 
determine that there is not a significant difference in the selling 
functions performed in the U.S. and home markets and that these sales 
are made at the same LOT. Therefore, an LOT adjustment is not 
appropriate.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to the NV. 
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2), we calculated monthly weighted-
average prices for NV and compared these to individual EP transactions.

Export Price

    For calculation of the price to the United States, we used EP, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because Husky's subject 
merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in either 
Canada (shipped directly from the producer to the U.S. purchaser) or 
the United States prior to importation, and use of the CEP methodology 
was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on free on board 
(f.o.b.) plant or delivered prices to unrelated customers. We made 
deductions to the starting price for movement expenses (inland freight, 
brokerage and handling, and tank car leasing expenses) pursuant to 
section 772(c)(2) of the Act. For a further explanation of how we 
calculated EP, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results of Review, December 31, 1998 (``Analysis Memo''). 
Because Husky invoices its customers, in all cases, after shipment, we 
have used Husky's shipment date as the date of sale for the United 
States in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i).

Normal Value

    We compared the aggregate volume of Husky's home market sales of 
the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to 
determine whether the volume of the foreign like product Husky sold in 
Canada was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to 
form a basis for NV. Because Husky's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act, we have based the determination of NV upon Husky's home market 
sales of the foreign like product. Moreover, there is no evidence on 
the record indicating a particular market situation in the exporting 
country that would not permit a proper comparison of home market and 
U.S. prices. See section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act. Thus, we based 
NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for 
consumption in Canada, in the usual commercial quantities, in the 
ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as the EP sales.
    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-
Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparison'' sections of this 
notice.

Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis

    Because the Department determined, in the most recently completed 
review, that Husky made sales in the home market at prices below the 
cost of producing the subject merchandise (see, e.g., Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Review: Elemental Sulphur from Canada, 62 FR 969 
(January 7, 1997)), the Department determines in this review that there 
are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Husky made sales in 
the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. 
See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department 
initiated a cost of production inquiry in this case on February 2, 
1998, to determine whether Husky made home market sales during the POR 
at prices below their respective COPs within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Husky's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for home market selling, general and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A''), interest expenses, and packing 
costs. We used home market sales and COP information provided by Husky 
in its questionnaire responses. We made the following changes to 
Husky's reported costs based on our verification findings: (1) We 
included ``interest on subordinated shareholders' loans'' and 
``Dividends on Class C shares'' in the calculation of the financial 
expense ratio (Husky omitted these costs from its calculation of COP 
and CV); (2) we revised the reported cost of sales (``COS'') figure 
used in the calculation of the financial expense ratio to exclude 
several costs used in Husky's calculation of the financial expense 
ratio; (3) we included certain miscellaneous and non-operating expense 
items in the calculation of the general and administrative (``G&A'') 
expense ratio; and (4) we revised the reported COS figure used in the 
calculation of the G&A ratio to exclude several costs. See Memorandum 
to the File, ``Preliminary Cost Calculations for Husky Oil, Ltd.'', 
dated December 31, 1998 and the Cost Verification Report, dated 
December 1, 1998.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the POR-long weighted average COP for Husky, adjusted 
where appropriate (see above), to its home

[[Page 850]]

market sales of the foreign like product as required under section 
773(b) of the Act. In determining whether to disregard home market 
sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether: (1) Within 
an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial 
quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product within an extended 
period of time are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales are not 
made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the extended period are at 
prices less than the COP, we determine such sales to have been made in 
``substantial quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. The 
extended period of time for this analysis is the POR. See section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because each individual price was compared 
against the POR-long weighted average COP, any sales that were below 
cost were also at prices which did not permit cost recovery within a 
reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2)(D). We compared the 
COP for liquid sulphur to the reported home market prices less any 
applicable movement charges. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 
Act, we concluded that Husky's below cost sales were made in 
substantial quantities because the volume of these sales represented 
more than 20 percent of the volume of sales under consideration for the 
determination of NV. We also concluded that these below-cost sales were 
made within an extended period of time (i.e., within the POR) within 
the meaning of section 773 of the Act. See Statement of Administrative 
Action (``SAA''), accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, at 
832.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated 
Husky's CV based on the sum of Husky's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A, interest expenses and profit. We calculated the COPs included in 
the calculation of CV as noted above in the ``Calculation of COP'' 
section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by 
Husky in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in Canada.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
(Husky made no sales to affiliated parties). Home market prices were 
based on ex-factory or delivered prices. We made adjustments, where 
applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in 
circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting home market direct selling 
expenses (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit).

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
if we were unable to find suitable home market sales of the foreign 
like product. We made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 
773(a)(8) of the Act. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses.

Revocation

    As noted, Husky has requested revocation pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222, which, at subsection (d), authorizes the Department to treat 
unreviewed intervening years as reviewed periods for purposes of its 
revocation analysis. However, the Department's policy is not to apply 
this regulation retroactively to include periods subject to review 
under earlier versions of the regulations. As we explained in a recent 
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on agricultural 
tillage tools from Brazil, ``[a]lthough section 351.222(d) of the 
Department's regulations provides that the Secretary may revoke the 
order in part when there are unreviewed years in the period upon which 
revocation is based, the regulations do not provide for the application 
of this provision retroactively to review periods that would have been 
controlled by the Department's pre-Uruguay Round regulations.'' See 
June 11, 1998 Letter from Barbara Tillman, Director, Office of CVD/AD 
Enforcement VI, to Randolph J. Stayin, Barnes & Thornburg. See also 
Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From Brazil; Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 37532, 37533 (July 13, 
1998) (``The Department considered Marchesan's revocation request and 
determined that the company did not meet the requirements to be 
considered for revocation from the countervailing duty order.'') 
(affirmed in final results at 63 FR 52685). Likewise, in Frozen 
Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 26145, 26146 (May 12, 1998), the 
Department declined to apply new section 351.222 retroactively to 
include periods that would have been reviewed under pre-URAA regulatory 
authority in its revocation analysis.
    Because the Department does not apply section 351.222(d) of the new 
regulations retroactively, any unreviewed periods that apply to the 
three-consecutive-year revocation requirement must be periods reviewed 
under Part 351. Husky's 1995-96 POR thus cannot be considered the 
second of three consecutive PORs in this revocation analysis. 
Therefore, because Husky has not satisfied the threshold requirement 
that revocation be based upon sales ``at not less than normal value for 
a period of at least three consecutive years,'' we do not reach the 
additional criteria for revocation enumerated at 19 CFR 351.222 (b)(2) 
(ii) and (iii).

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period 
December 1, 1996 through November 30, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Husky Oil, Ltd.............................................         0.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with this preliminary determination within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication. Case briefs from interested parties may 
be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register; rebuttal briefs may be submitted 
not later than five days thereafter. Any hearing, if requested, will be 
held 2 days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. 
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
case briefs. The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including its analysis of issues raised in any 
written comments or at a hearing, not later than 120 days after the 
date of publication of this notice.
    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties

[[Page 851]]

on all appropriate entries. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results, we will instruct Customs not to assess antidumping 
duties on the merchandise subject to review. Upon completion of this 
review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the Customs Service. If applicable, we will calculate an importer-
specific ad valorem duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the 
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales 
made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to 
calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all 
entries of that particular importer made during the POR. This is 
equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which 
are calculated by taking the difference between statutory NV and 
statutory EP, by the total statutory EP value of the sales compared, 
and adjusting the result by the average difference between EP and 
Customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For Husky, no deposit will be required; (2) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, 
or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate 
for all other manufacturers will be the ``all others'' rate made 
effective by the final results of the 1993-94 administrative review of 
these orders (see 1992-93 and 1993-94 Final Results). These deposit 
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 30, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-242 Filed 1-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P