[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5636-5638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2675]



[[Page 5636]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-427-001]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Sorbitol From France

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Sorbitol 
from France.

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

SUMMARY: On October 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
sorbitol from France (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 crystalline 
sorbitol, a polyol produced by the hydrogenation of sugars (glucose), 
used in the production of sugarless gum, candy, groceries, and 
pharmaceuticals, currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (``HTS'') item number 2905.44.00. The HTS item number is 
provided for convenience and for Customs purposes. The written 
description remain dispositive.
    This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of sorbitol from 
France.
    Background: On October 1, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset 
review of the antidumping order on sorbitol from France (63 FR 52683) 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. On October 6, 1998, we received 
a Notice of Intent to Participate from SPI Polyols, Inc. (``SPI''). On 
October 16, 1998, we received a Notice of Intent to Participate from 
Archer Daniels Midland Company (``ADM'') and Roquette America (``RA''). 
Each of these notices were received within the deadline specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. ADM and SPI claimed 
interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as domestic 
producers of sorbitol. RA claimed interested party status as a domestic 
producer and as an importer of the subject merchandise. The Department 
received substantive responses on behalf of each of the three parties 
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. 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)(1) 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 
order. Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department 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, 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 Department's antidumping duty order on sorbitol from France was 
published in the Federal Register (47 FR 15391) on April 9, 1982. Since 
that time the Department has conducted several administrative 
reviews.1 The antidumping duty order remains in effect for 
all imports of sorbitol from France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Sorbitol from France; Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 47 FR 6459 (February 12, 1982); Sorbitol from 
France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 51 
FR 42873 (November 26, 1986); Sorbitol from France; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 52 FR 20444 (June 1, 1987); 
Sorbitol from France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 53 FR 21506 (June 8, 1988); Sorbitol from 
France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 
FR 6668 (February 26, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, ADM argues that if the order on 
crystalline sorbitol from France were revoked dumping will continue or 
resume. ADM supports its conclusion by stating that after the issuance 
of the order, dumping of sorbitol continued at levels above de minimis, 
imports ceased and imports declined when they did not cease altogether. 
With respect to margins above de minimis, ADM notes that in five of the 
seven administrative reviews

[[Page 5637]]

conducted by the Department since 1982, margins exceeded de minimis, 
and in one instance, the margin was more than four times that of the 
original margin.2 With respect to the cessation of imports, 
ADM states that Roquette Freres (``RF''), the only known exporter of 
sorbitol to the U.S., previously acknowledged that its sorbitol exports 
ceased for at least some period of time after the issuance of the 
antidumping order. ADM argues that because RF requested revocation in 
1988 based on no shipments for several years and no sales that 
contained margins during the 1987-88 administrative review period, the 
Department could conclude RF could not ship sorbitol to the U.S. 
without dumping. Finally ADM argues that aggregated import statistics 
for HTSUS item no. 2905.44.00, which includes crystalline sorbitol, 
indicates that the total volume of imports declined, thus providing a 
basis to infer that RF exported smaller volumes in certain periods 
compared to the volumes that it shipped before the antidumping petition 
was originally filed.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Substantive Response of ADM (November 2, 1998) at 4.
    \3\ See Substantive Response of ADM (November 2, 1998) appendix 
B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response SPI asserts that absent the order, RF 
will resume large volume shipments from its French plant, producing 
dumping margins in the range of 40 percent. SPI further asserts that in 
recent years RF sold to U.S. customers exclusively from its U.S. plant. 
However, RF has been bidding at extra-low prices to obtain additional 
U.S. business. If successful, the additional business would 
substantially exceed the capacity at RF's Illinois plant. Thus, SPI 
asserts, it is obvious that RF plans to serve the additional business 
from its French plant. Citing to the July 1998 marketing report, 
``Sorbitol and Related Polyols--Worldwide Supply, Demand Business 
Opportunities 1997/8-2005'' in which the price for sorbitol 100% is 
given as $2.15/kg in the EU and $1.65/kg in the United States, SPI 
estimates dumping margins of 40 percent.
    RA, in its substantive response to the notice of initiation, 
supported the preservation of the antidumping order. RA claimed that 
the EU, particularly France, is currently significantly expanding 
production capacity for crystalline sorbitol. Further, because market 
demand within the EU is growing very slowly and cannot be expected to 
consume the capacity increase and because exports are expected to 
decline drastically because of the Asian crisis, the EU industry will 
be seeking new export markets, with the United States being the likely 
target.
    As discussed in section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, ``[E]xistence of dumping 
margins after the order, or 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.'' As ADM noted, dumping margins above de 
minimis were found to exist in five of the seven administrative reviews 
conducted by the Department. Further, deposit rates above de minimis 
continue in effect for exports of sorbitol from France. Therefore, 
given that dumping margins above de minimis were found to exist and 
continue in effect, 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 the Department's final determination of sales at less than fair 
value of sorbitol from France, the Department established a 2.9 percent 
dumping margin for RF. The Department has not issued an affirmative 
duty absorption determination.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Sobitol from France; Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 47 FR 6549 (February 12, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADM states that in compliance with the SAA, the Department should 
provide the original margin of 2.9 percent to the Commission because 
2.9 percent reflects RF's behavior without the discipline of an order 
in place.5 ADM further argues that, in this case, it is not 
appropriate for the Department to select a more recently calculated 
rate because the dumping margins calculated for the seven reviews 
conducted by the Department have fluctuated significantly and do not 
evince a pattern from which the Department could conclude that a more 
recently calculated rate is likely to prevail in the absence of the 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

    RA argues that a dumping margin of more than 20 percent is likely 
to prevail if the order is revoked because the EU market, including 
France, is a highly protected market with a tariff structure which 
prohibits U.S. producers from exporting to the EU. In addition, RA 
claims that the EU has a system of export refunds to compensate EU 
producers for the high internal EU prices of grains which are the 
feedstock for crystalline sorbitol outside the EU.
    As discussed above, SPI alleges that the margin of dumping likely 
to prevail if the order is revoked is 40 percent. SPI bases this 
allegation on an EU price of $2.15/kg and a U.S. price of $1.65.
    As noted in the Sunset Regulations and Sunset Policy Bulletin, only 
under the most extraordinary circumstances will the Department rely on 
a dumping margin other than those it calculated and published in its 
prior determinations. Further, in antidumping sunset reviews, the 
Department will consider other factors, such as prices and costs, only 
where it determines that good cause to consider such other factors 
exists (see section 351.218(e)(2) of the Sunset Regulations and section 
II.C of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Although RA and SPI assert that 
the dumping margin likely to prevail without the order could be 20 
percent or 40 percent, they do not make any ``good cause'' arguments. 
Neither RA nor SPI offered any rationale suggesting that their 
estimated margins would not be more speculative and, therefore, less 
probative than the calculated rate from the original investigation.
    The Department finds no reason to deviate from our Policy Bulletin 
in this review. Therefore, 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 French producers of sorbitol. 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.

[[Page 5638]]

    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
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roquette Freres..............................................       2.90
All Others...................................................       2.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 28, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-2675 Filed 2-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P