[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5633-5635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2673]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-007]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Barium Chloride From 
the People's Republic of China (PRC)

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Barium 
Chloride from the People's Republic of China (PRC).

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

SUMMARY: On October 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
barium chloride from China (PRC) (63 FR 52683) 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 a complete substantive 
response 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 
order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping 
at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section to 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-
3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 1999.
    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 covered by this order is barium chloride, a 
chemical compound having the formula BaCl2 or 
BaCl2 2H2O, currently classifiable under item 
2827.38.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS). The HTS item 
number is provided for convenience and for Customs purposes. The 
written descriptions remain dispositive.
    This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of barium 
chloride from China.
    Background: On October 1, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset 
review of the antidumping order on barium chloride from China (63 FR 
52683) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a 
Notice of Intent to Participate from Chemical Products Corporation 
(``CPC'') on October 15, 1998, within the deadline specified in section 
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. CPC claimed interested 
party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a United States 
producer of barium chloride. In its substantive response, CPC stated 
that it was the petitioner in the original antidumping investigation 
that led to the issuance of the antidumping duty order on barium 
chloride from China.

[[Page 5634]]

Further, CPC stated that it has participated in all of the 
administrative reviews that have been conducted by the Department on 
barium chloride from China. On October 28, 1998, the Department 
received a substantive response from CPC, within the 30-day deadline 
specified in Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We 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. Sec. 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), we 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 order 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 it 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 magnitude of the margin are discussed below. 
In addition, 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 
clarified that determinations of likelihood will be made on an order-
wide basis (see section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). 
Additionally, 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).
    The antidumping duty order on barium chloride from China was issued 
on October 17,1984.1 Since that time, the Department has 
conducted several administrative reviews.2 The antidumping 
duty order remains in effect for all imports of barium chloride from 
China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Barium Chloride from the People's Republic of China, 
Antidumping Duty Order, 49 FR 40635 (October 17, 1984).
    \2\ See Barium Chloride from the People's Republic of China; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 52 FR 313 
(January 5, 1987); Barium Chloride form the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 
FR 52 (January 3, 1989); and Barium Chloride from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 57 FR 29467 (July 2, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, CPC argued that revocation of the 
antidumping duty order would result in the resumption of export 
shipments of barium chloride from China on a large scale and at prices 
well below fair value. CPC based its conclusion on a number of factors, 
including historical experience, Chinese productive capacity, the Asian 
economic crisis, and Chinese export policy. CPC argued that the 
Department should determine that dumping will continue or resume on the 
basis that dumping continued at levels above de minimis while the order 
has been in effect and imports of the subject merchandise ceased after 
the issuance of the order.
    With respect to continuation of dumping after the issuance of the 
order, CPC referred to the final results of administrative reviews 
issued by the Department 3 and stated that historical 
experience clearly demonstrates that the subject merchandise has been 
dumped at margins greater than de minimis since the issuance of the 
order. CPC stated that the 60.84 percent duty deposit margin currently 
in effect for Sinochem (the Chinese manufacturer/exporter reviewed) was 
first imposed in the final results of administrative review issued on 
January 3, 1989.4 CPC suggested that, as a result of the 
60.84 percent deposit rate, there was a significant decrease in exports 
and ultimately a cessation of exports. CPC noted that for the October 
1, 1990 through September 30, 1991, review period, the Department found 
that there were no shipments. CPC supports its assertion that the order 
resulted in the decrease, and ultimate cessation, of exports of barium 
chloride from China with reference to import statistics.5 
CPC asserts that the Department's issuance of preliminary and final 
determinations of sales at less than fair value in April and August of 
1984, resulted in the decrease of imports from China from 5.3 million 
pounds in 1983 to 3.2 million pounds in 1984. CPC also noted that with 
the 1989 issuance on a 60.84 percent duty deposit rate, imports 
decreased from 1.5 million pounds in 1988 to 0.2 million pounds in 
1989, and ultimately to zero by 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
    \4\ The review covered the period October 1, 1985 through 
September 30, 1986, and set the duty deposit rates for entries on or 
after the publication date of the notice.
    \5\ CPC provided data collected from the U.S. Census Bureau and 
published on Form IM 145 (from 1980 through 1988 the data were 
reported under TSUS 417.70.00 and for 1989 through 1997 under HTSUS 
287.38.0000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPC acknowledged that imports reappeared in 1994, but at levels 
significantly below pre-order levels. CPC argued, therefore, that the 
continuation of dumping combined with the cessation of exports 
demonstrates that Chinese barium chloride cannot be sold in the U.S. 
market except through dumping. CPC also asserted that, in addition to 
the original three Chinese factories producing barium chloride (as 
identified in the ITC's report), it had obtained information that an 
additional seven factories (with capacity of 73,400 MT/annum) produce 
barium chloride in China. Noting that barium chloride is a commodity 
chemical product with a number of industrial uses and applications, CPC 
argued that as economic and industrial activity slows in China's 
traditional Asian markets, the demand for barium chloride will decrease 
and Chinese exports will decline. Therefore, asserts CPC, without an 
antidumping order in place, the Chinese producers of barium chloride 
can be expected to turn their attention to the U.S. market for their 
excess production. Finally, CPC argues that, as supported by statements 
of U.S. government officials, China has an aggressive export policy in 
place that, with the revocation of the order, could be expected to 
result in the resumption of large-scale shipments to the United States.
    In conclusion, CPC stated that for each of the above discussed 
reasons, without an order in place, dumping from China would likely 
overwhelm CPC and eliminate the lone remaining U.S. producer of barium 
chloride.
    As discussed in Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890,

[[Page 5635]]

and the House Report at 63-64, ``Existence of dumping margins after the 
order, or the cessation of imports after the order, is highly probative 
of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. If 
companies continue to dump with the discipline of an order in place, it 
is reasonable to assume that dumping would continue if the discipline 
were removed. If imports cease after the order is issued, it is 
reasonable to 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.'' Deposit rates above de minimis continue in 
effect for exports of barium chloride from China. Additionally, exports 
of barium chloride from China ceased between 1991 and 1993, and 
although since resumed, have never reached higher than six percent of 
their pre-order level. Therefore, given that dumping above de minimis 
has continued over the life of the order and imports ceased at least 
temporarily, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the 
Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the order 
were revoked.
    Magnitude of the Margin: In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department stated that, consistent with the SAA and House Report, the 
Department will provide to the Commission the company-specific margins 
from the investigation for each company because that is the only 
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the 
discipline of an order. 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 all 
others rate from the investigation. 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.
    In its substantive response, CPC urged the Department to determine 
that the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order were 
revoked is 60.84 percent, the margin determined in the final results of 
the second administrative review and the current duty deposit rate. CPC 
asserted that the Department has recognized that dumping margins can 
increase after the issuance of an order and that a more current and 
higher margin, even if based on the best information available, may 
well be a more appropriate indicator of the magnitude of the margin 
likely to prevail if the order were revoked. CPC argued that the 
dumping margin and cash deposit rate for barium chloride from China 
increased significantly after the issuance of the antidumping duty 
order--from 14.5 percent to 60.84 percent. CPC stated that the 14.5 
percent rate from the original investigation was never actually used as 
the basis of assessing duties, as it was replaced by a rate of 7.82 
percent in the first administrative review. Given that the margin of 
60.84 percent has applied to all imports since October 1, 1986, CPC 
argues that this is the only appropriate and realistic measure of the 
magnitude of dumping.
    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that ``a 
company may choose to increase dumping in order to maintain or increase 
market share'' and that ``the Department may, in response to argument 
from an interested party, provide the Commission a more recently 
calculated margin for a particular company, where for that particular 
company, dumping margins increased after the issuance of the order.'' 
(See section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) As detailed in 
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Stainless Steel Plate From 
Sweden (63 FR 67658, December 8, 1998) the Department's intent was to 
establish a policy of using the original investigation margin as a 
starting point, thus providing interested parties the opportunity and 
incentive to come forward with data which would support a different 
estimate. In this case, CPC merely argued that the margin from the 
original determination was never actually used to assess duties and 
that, by the second review, the margin had increased to a level where 
it remains today. The import statistics provided by CPC demonstrate 
that, after steadily increasing from 1980 to 1983, imports of barium 
chloride from China began decreasing with the issuance of the 
preliminary and final determinations of sales at less than fair value. 
We note that the margin from the original investigation served as the 
duty deposit rate until January 1987, when the final results of the 
first administrative review were issued. Further, the final results 
(the 60.84 percent) of the administrative review covering imports from 
October 1985 through September 1986, were issued in January 1989, five 
years after the issuance of the order and, at a time when imports had 
already decreased to less than 30 percent of the pre-investigation 
level of imports. Although the statistics provided by CPC demonstrate a 
slight increase in the volume of imports between 1984 and 1985, import 
volumes decreased every year thereafter until 1995. Therefore, because 
there was no increase in imports of barium chloride from China 
corresponding to the increase in the dumping margin, we find CPC's 
argument of choosing the rate from the second administrative review 
(and current deposit rate) unpersuasive. Therefore, we find no reason 
to deviate from our Sunset Policy Bulletin in this review. We determine 
that the original margin calculated by the Department, which reflects 
the behavior of exporters without the discipline of the order, is 
probative of the behavior of the Chinese producers/exporters of barium 
chloride. The Department will report to the Commission the company-
specific and ``all others'' rate at the levels indicated in the Final 
Results of the Review 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 margins listed 
below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Chemicals Import and Export Corporation (SINO-
 CHEM).......................................................      14.50
All Others...................................................      14.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 29, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-2673 Filed 2-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P