[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11440-11442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5793]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-002]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Chloropicrin from the 
People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: 
chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China

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

SUMMARY: On November 2, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China (63 FR 58709) 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 order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of the 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 Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: March 9, 1999.

supplementary information:

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 order is chloropicrin, 
also known as trichloronitromethane. A major use of the product is as a 
pre-plant soil fumigant (pesticide). Such merchandise is currently 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 
2904.90.50. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and U.S. 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of 
chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').

Background

    On November 2, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the antidumping order on chloropicrin from the PRC (63 FR 58709), 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice 
of Intent to Participate on behalf of ASHTA Chemicals, Inc., HoltraChem 
Manufacturing Company, L.L.C., Niklor Chemical Company, Inc., and 
Trinity Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively ``the domestic interested 
parties''), on November 13, 1998, within the deadline specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Each company 
claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as 
a U.S. manufacturer of a domestic like product. The domestic interested 
parties note that LCP Chemicals & Plastics, Inc. (``LCP'') 1 
and Niklor Chemical Company, Inc. filed the original petition in this 
proceeding. We received a complete substantive response from the 
domestic interested parties on December 2, 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 19

[[Page 11441]]

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct an 
expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Hanlin Group, Inc., the parent company of LCP, continued 
to participate in this case until 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-averaged 
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, and 
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 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).
    In addition to guidance on likelihood provided in the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin and legislative history, section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act 
provides that the Department shall determine that revocation of an 
order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping where 
a respondent interested party waives its participation in the sunset 
review. In the instant review, the Department did not receive a 
response from any interested party. Pursuant to section 
351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver 
of participation.
    The antidumping order on chloropicrin from the PRC was published in 
the Federal Register on March 22, 1984 (49 FR 10691). Since the 
imposition of the order, the Department has conducted one 
administrative review.2 The order remains in effect for all 
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order, 50 FR 2844 
(January 22, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The domestic interested parties argue that the Department should 
determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were 
the order revoked for four reasons. First, according to the domestic 
interested parties, imports of the subject merchandise ceased after 
imposition of the order. The domestic interested parties argue that, 
according to the Commission's final determination in March, 1984, 
imports of chloropicrin ceased in September 1983 after the Department's 
preliminary antidumping determination.3 Second, there are 
significant imports to the United States of nitromethane from the PRC, 
a product that is used in the production of chloropicrin. The domestic 
interested parties argue that this indicates that the PRC producers 
have the immediate ability and interest to export chloropicrin to the 
United States and sell it at less than fair value. Third, chloropicrin 
is a price-competitive, commodity-type product which could provide an 
opportunity for PRC producers to capture a large percentage of the 
market if the order were revoked. And finally, a dumping margin of 58 
percent on imports of PRC chloropicrin continues in effect for all PRC 
exporters (see December 2, 1998, Substantive Response of the Domestic 
Interested Parties at 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Chloropicrin From the People's Republic of China, Inv. 
731-TA-130 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 1505 (March 1984) at A-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making its determination, the Department considers the existence 
of dumping margins and the volume of imports before and after the 
issuance of the order. As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if 
companies continue dumping with the discipline of an order in place, 
the Department may reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the 
discipline were removed. In the instant proceeding, a dumping margin 
above de minimis continues to exist for shipments of the subject 
merchandise from The China National Chemicals Import and Export 
Corporation (``SINOCHEM'') and William Hunt & Co. of Hong Kong, a third 
country reseller.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The dumping margin for both SINOCHEM and William Hunt & Co. 
is 58 percent. See Chloropicrin from The People's Republic of China; 
Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order; 50 FR 
2844 (January 22, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also reviewed data on the volume of imports before 
and after issuance of the order, consistent with section 752(c) of the 
Act. The Department examined U.S. Census data (IM146 reports) for the 
years preceding the imposition of the order through the present. This 
information demonstrates that exports of chloropicrin from the PRC 
decreased sharply after the imposition of the order. In 1982, exports 
of the subject merchandise to the United States exceeded 1.25 million 
kilograms and, in 1983, exports of the subject merchandise to the 
United States exceeded 2.45 million kilograms. However, in 1985, the 
year after the imposition of the order, this volume fell to zero. In 
the years following the imposition of the order, exports of 
chloropicrin to the United States never reached their pre-order level 
and have, for the majority of the interim years, remained below 200,000 
kilograms per year. Based on this analysis, the Department finds that 
the imports of the subject merchandise have fallen significantly since 
the imposition of the order.
    We find the existence of deposit rates above de minimis levels and 
the reduction in export volumes over the life of the order is highly 
probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping.5 Dumping margins continue in effect for exports of 
the subject merchandise by all known PRC exporters and third country 
resellers. Given that dumping margins have continued over the life of 
the order, respondent interested parties waived participation in the 
sunset review, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the

[[Page 11442]]

Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the order 
were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, state that 
the ``[e]xistence 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Department based this determination on the continued 
existence of margins above de minimis and respondent interested 
parties' waiver of participation, it is not necessary to address the 
domestic interested parties' arguments concerning non-U.S. export 
markets, exports of nitromethane, or the price-competitive nature of 
chloropicrin.

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 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.)
    The Department published, in the Federal Register, the antidumping 
duty order for chloropicrin from the PRC on March 22, 1984 (49 FR 
10691). In this order, the Department established a weighted-averaged 
margin for SINOCHEM of 58 percent. Also, in this order, the Department 
established a weighted-averaged margin for any other manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise of 58 percent.6 We note 
that, to date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption 
findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Chloropicrin from the People's 
Republic of China, 49 FR 10691 (March 22, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
recommended that, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department provide to the Commission the original dumping margin of 58 
percent established by the Department for all PRC manufacturers/
exporters of chloropicrin.
    The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties' 
argument concerning the choice of the margin to report to the 
Commission. In the original investigation, the Department calculated a 
margin for SINOCHEM and established an ``all others'' rate for the 
remaining companies. The margin from the original investigation is the 
only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without 
the discipline of the order. Therefore, consistent with the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin, we will report to the Commission the company-specific 
rate for SINOCHEM and the ``all others'' rate from the original 
investigation for all remaining companies as the dumping margin likely 
to prevail if the order were revoked. These margins are contained 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 order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINOCHEM...................................................         58.0
All Other Manufacturers/Exporters..........................         58.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: March 3, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-5793 Filed 3-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P