[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5631-5633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2676]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-427-098]


Final Result of Expedited Sunset Review: Anhydrous Sodium 
Metasilicate From France

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

ACTION: Notice of final result of expedited sunset review: Anhydrous 
sodium metasilicate from France.

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

SUMMARY: On October 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset review of the antidumping duty order on 
anhydrous sodium metasilicate from France (63 FR 52683) pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On 
the bases of the notice of intent to participate and substantive 
comments filed on behalf of the domestic industry, and inadequate 
responses (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 duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of 
Review 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 and Constitution 
Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397 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 subject to this antidumping duty order is 
anhydrous sodium metasilicate (``ASM''), a crystallized silicate (Na2 
SiO3) which is alkaline and readily soluble in water. Applications 
include waste paper de-inking, ore-flotation, bleach stabilization, 
clay processing, medium or heavy duty cleaning, and compounding into 
other detergent formulations. The Department determined that ASM mixed 
with caustic soda beads or with sodium tripolyphosphate is within the 
scope of the order.1 This merchandise is currently 
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) item numbers 2839.11.00 and 2839.19.00. The HTSUS 
item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. 
They are not determinative of the products subject to the order. The 
written description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results 
of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 15620 
(April 12, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of ASM from 
France.
    Background: On October 1, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset 
review of the antidumping duty order on ASM from France (63 FR 52683), 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice 
of Intent to Participate on behalf of PQ Corporation (``PQ'') within 
the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. PQ claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) 
of the Act, section 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(E), as a manufacturer, producer, 
or wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like product. On 
October 29, 1998, PQ Corporation requested an extension of time for 
submission of its substantive response to the notice of initiation and 
was granted an extension until November 3, 1998 (see October 30, 1998, 
letter from Acting Director, Office of Policy). On October 30, 1998, we 
received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Occidental 
Chemical Corporation (``Occidental''), which claimed interested party 
status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(E), as a 
manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a 
domestic like product. We received a complete substantive response from 
PQ on November 3, 1998, within the extended deadline. PQ's substantive 
response contained a letter of support from Occidental. We did not 
receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party to 
this sunset 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)), 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 duty 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 duty 
order, and it 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 margin are discussed below. In 
addition, parties' comments with respect to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping and the magnitude of margin are

[[Page 5632]]

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).
    On January 7, 1981, an antidumping duty order on ASM from France 
was published in the Federal Register (46 FR 1667). Since that time, 
the Department has conducted a number of administrative reviews on this 
order.2 The order remains in effect for all imports of the 
subject merchandise from France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results 
of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 15620 
(April 2, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final 
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 
44594 (October 8, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; 
Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 49 
FR 43733 (October 31, 1984); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From 
France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 
FR 4195 (February 12, 1988); Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France, 52 
FR 33856 (September 8, 1987); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From 
France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 
FR 9785 (March 25, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 43251 
(October 26, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 50788 
(December 11, 1989); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 42979 
(August 30, 1991); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 49684 
(November 3, 1992); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 51615 
(October 4, 1993); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 8631 
(February 15, 1995); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 30852 
(June 18, 1996); and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 44038 
(August 27, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, PQ stated that following the 
imposition of the antidumping duty, Rhone Poulenc/Rhodia ceased 
exporting ASM from France. PQ noted that Rhone Poulenc/Rhodia kept its 
sales network in place as well as much of its distribution network and 
entered into an agreement with a U.S. producer to distribute U.S.-
manufactured ASM to fill out its product line. PQ stated that Rhone 
Poulenc/Rhodia has excess ASM production capacity. PQ argued, 
therefore, that absent the existence of the order, Rhodia will resume 
exporting ASM from France. PQ asserted that because demand for ASM has 
been decreasing over time and there is excess production capacity in 
the United States as well as Europe, any market shift would most likely 
be due to a lower price offered by the seller of the imported product. 
PQ further asserted that, because of the low value-to-weight ratio, and 
because of the high cost of freight for ASM, all things being equal, no 
French producer could compete in the U.S. market without sales at less 
than fair value.
    As noted above, the Department has conducted several administrative 
reviews of this order covering the only known exporter Rhone-Poulenc. 
In the administrative reviews of the periods spanning November 1, 1980 
through December 31, 1981, January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1988, 
and January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990, the Department found no 
shipments of ASM from France.3 Further, because Rhone-
Poulenc did not respond to questionnaires in the administrative reviews 
of the periods spanning January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1995, the 
Department has no information from the reviews with respect to whether 
there were any imports of ASM from France.4 Finally, the 
Department terminated the administrative reviews of the periods 
spanning January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997, based on the 
absence of entries.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results 
of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 15620 
(April 12, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final 
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 
44594 (October 8, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 9785 
(March 25, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 43251 
(October 26, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 50788 
(December 11, 1989); and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 42979 
(August 30, 1991).
    \4\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 49684 (November 3, 
1992); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 51615 (October 4, 
1993); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 8631 (February 15, 
1995); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 30852 (June 18, 1996); 
and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 44038 (August 27, 
1996).
    \5\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Notice of 
Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 43701 
(August 15, 1997); and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; 
Notice of Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 
31179 (June 10, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We find, therefore, that the cessation of imports after the 
issuance of the order is highly probative of the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping. Furthermore, deposit rates above 
de minimis levels continue to be in effect for all shipments of the 
subject merchandise from France. 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 exporters could not sell in the United States without dumping and 
that, to reenter the U.S. market, they would have to resume dumping. 
Therefore, absent argument and evidence to the contrary, given that 
shipments of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of the 
order, and that dumping margins continue to exist, the Department, 
consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, 
determines that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the 
antidumping duty order were revoked.
    Magnitude of the Margin: In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department stated that it will normally provide to the Commission the 
margin that was determined in the final determination in the original 
investigation. Further, 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

[[Page 5633]]

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 on ASM from France, the Department established an antidumping 
margin of 60.00 percent (see Anhydrous Sodium Metasillicate From 
France--Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 45 FR 
77498 (November 24, 1980) and Anhydrous Sodium Metasillicate From 
France; Antidumping Duty Order, 46 FR 1667 (January 7, 1981)).
    In its substantive response, PQ asserted that because of the high 
cost of freight for ASM, no French producer could compete in the U.S. 
market without having sales at less than fair value. Although PQ did 
not specify the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order 
were revoked, it submitted information for ``computations of export 
price or constructed export price and normal value, based on realistic 
assumption.'' (See Substantive Response of PQ, November 2, 1998, at 2 
and attachment.)
    The SAA at 891, House Report at 64, and section 351.218(e)(2)(i) of 
the Sunset Regulations provide that, only in the context of a full 
sunset review and only under the most extraordinary circumstances will 
the Department rely on a countervailing duty rate or dumping margin 
other than those it calculated and published in its prior 
determinations. The Department, on the basis of inadequate responses 
(in this case, no response), determined to conduct an expedited review 
of this duty order. Only in full reviews will the Department consider 
the calculation of new margins. Further, even if the Department had 
determined to conduct a full review of this order, it is not persuaded 
by the evidence presented by PQ that such extraordinary circumstances 
exist in this case as to warrant the calculation of a new dumping 
margin.
    Therefore, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine 
that the original margin we calculated, which reflects the behavior of 
exporters without the discipline of the order, is probative of the 
behavior of the French producers and exporters of ASM. The Department 
will report to the Commission the company-specific and ``all others'' 
rate at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of 
this notice.
    Final Results of Review: As a result of this review, the Department 
finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to 
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated 
below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                   Manufacturers/exporters                     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhone-Poulenc................................................      60.00
All Others...................................................      60.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: January 29, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-2676 Filed 2-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P