[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 59 (Monday, March 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14863-14865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7525]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-827]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sunkyu Kim or John Maloney, Office of 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Group II, Office 5, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-2613 or (202) 482-1503.

The Applicable Statute

    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 of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR 
part 351 (April 1998).

Final Determination

    We determine that emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESBR) from 
Brazil is being sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act. The estimated margins of 
sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Continuation of Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the preliminary determination in this investigation on 
October 28, 1998 (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Emulsion 
Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, 63 FR 59509 (November 4, 1998) 
(Preliminary Determination)), the following events have occurred:
    On December 9, 1998, the sole respondent in this case, Petroflex 
Industria e Comercio S.A. (Petroflex), submitted a letter to the 
Department stating that Petroflex is ``unable to receive Department 
personnel for verification as scheduled.'' Furthermore, Petroflex 
stated that the ``company does not anticipate a significant reduction 
in the final margin to warrant further participation in the 
Department's investigation'' and ``has therefore decided to focus its 
efforts on the injury proceedings at the U.S. International Trade 
Commission.'' As a result of Petroflex's decision not to participate in 
verification, the information provided by the company, which was the 
basis of our preliminary determination, could not be verified. 
Therefore, we have applied facts otherwise available in our final 
determination. For a further discussion, see ``Facts Available'' 
section below.
    We received a case brief from the petitioners on February 5, 1999. 
We received no case or rebuttal brief from Petroflex.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is ESBR. 
ESBR is a synthetic polymer made via free radical cold emulsion 
copolymerization of styrene and butadiene monomers in reactors. The 
reaction process involves combining styrene and butadiene monomers in 
water, with an initiator system, an emulsifier system, and molecular 
weight modifiers. ESBR consists of cold non-pigmented rubbers and cold 
oil extended non-pigmented rubbers that contain at least one percent of 
organic acids from the emulsion polymerization process.
    ESBR is produced and sold, both inside the United States and 
internationally, in accordance with a generally accepted set of product 
specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic 
Rubber Producers (IISRP). The universe of products subject to this 
investigation are grades of ESBR included in the IISRP 1500 series and 
IISRP 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in 
color and are often described as ``Clear'' or ``White Rubber.'' The 
1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often 
called ``Brown Rubber.'' ESBR is used primarily in the production of 
tires. It is also used in a variety of other products, including 
conveyor belts, shoe soles, some kinds of hoses, roller coverings, and 
flooring.
    Products manufactured by blending ESBR with other polymers, high 
styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch (i.e., IISRP 1600 
series and 1800 series) and latex (an intermediate product) are not 
included within the scope of this investigation.
    The products under investigation are currently classifiable under 
subheading 4002.19.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 1997 through March 
31, 1998.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party: 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
certain exceptions contained in section 782, use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination. In this case, 
Petroflex refused to allow the Department to verify the sales and cost 
of production data it provided in its questionnaire responses, thus 
rendering subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) inapplicable. Accordingly, we 
have determined that use of facts available is appropriate for 
Petroflex.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used

[[Page 14864]]

when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for 
information. See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994) (SAA). 
Petroflex's decision to refuse verification of its submitted data 
demonstrates that it has failed to act to the best of its ability to 
comply with a request for information under section 776 of the Act. 
Thus, the Department has determined that, in selecting among the facts 
otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. Consistent with 
Department practice in cases where the respondent refuses to 
participate, as adverse facts otherwise available, we have applied a 
margin based on the highest margin stated in the petition (there were 
no calculated margins in this investigation for us to consider). See, 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales At Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Germany, 63 FR 40433 (July 29, 1998).
    Section 776(c) provides that, when the Department relies on 
secondary information, such as the petition, when resorting to the 
facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information using independent sources that are 
reasonably at its disposal. To corroborate secondary information, to 
the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used. With respect to the 
reliability aspect of corroboration, we reviewed the adequacy and 
accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation 
analysis of the petition, to the extent appropriate information was 
available for this purpose (e.g., import statistics, call reports, and 
data from business contacts) as outlined below.
    The petitioners identified Petroflex as the sole exporter and 
producer of ESBR from Brazil. The petitioners based export price on 
U.S. prices in call reports generated by the petitioners' sales 
personnel in the normal course of business and obtained from various 
customers for ESBR grades 1502 and 1712, two grades most commonly 
exported to the United States. The petitioners adjusted the delivered 
U.S. prices to ex-factory prices by deducting international freight and 
insurance expenses. The source of these expenses were official U.S. 
import statistics. For sales that did not specify ``FOB Port'' or 
``Delivered'', the petitioners assumed the terms of these sales to be 
FOB Brazil and did not deduct international freight and insurance 
expenses. No other adjustments were made.
    With respect to normal value, the petitioners obtained from a local 
business contact in Brazil prices for contemporaneous sales of ESBR 
grades 1502 and 1712 from Petroflex to a Brazilian customer. The 
petitioners adjusted these home market prices for estimated inland 
freight and credit expenses. The interest rates used in the calculation 
of credit expenses were obtained from publicly available information. 
The Brazilian inland freight expenses and credit terms were based on 
information obtained by local business contacts, as noted in an 
affidavit. After making adjustments for movement expenses and credit 
expenses, the petitioners calculated ex-factory normal values which 
were converted to U.S. dollars using publicly available exchange rates. 
See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Emulsion 
Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and 
Mexico, 63 FR 20575 (April 27, 1998), and ``Office of Antidumping 
Investigations Initiation Checklist'' dated April 21, 1998 (Initiation 
Checklist).
    For purposes of the final determination, we reexamined the export 
price and normal value data provided in the petition in light of 
information obtained during the investigation and, to the extent that 
it could be corroborated, found that it continues to be reliable. For 
export prices, we attempted to corroborate the petition information by 
comparing the range of prices in the petition to U.S. Customs C.I.F. 
prices for the HTSUS number which includes subject merchandise (i.e., 
subheading 4002.19.0010). The price quotes submitted by the petitioners 
are consistent with the U.S. import statistics. Additionally, the 
actual information submitted by Petroflex regarding U.S. price in this 
case, although not dispositive because it is unverified, tends to 
corroborate information submitted in the petition. With regard to 
normal value, information obtained from Petroflex during the 
investigation shows the prices calculated by the petitioners represent 
a reasonable range of prices for the sale of the foreign like product 
in the home market.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department considers information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. In this proceeding, there was no information that indicated 
that the margins in the petition are not relevant. Thus, as the highest 
margin in the petition is reliable and relevant, the Department 
concludes that this margin has probative value and is sufficiently 
corroborated so that it may be used as facts available. See, the 
Memorandum to Louis Apple, Office Director from the Team on ``The 
Application of Facts Available Rate and Corroboration of Secondary 
Information for Petroflex Industria e Comercio S.A.'' dated March 19, 
1999.

The All-Others Rate

    The foreign manufacturer/exporter in this investigation is being 
assigned a dumping margin on the basis of facts otherwise available. 
Section 735(c)(5) of the Act provides that, where the dumping margins 
established for all exporters and producers individually investigated 
are determined entirely under section 776, the Department may use any 
reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for 
exporters and producers not individually investigated, including 
averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for 
the exporters and producers individually investigated. Where the data 
is not available to weight average the facts available rates, the SAA, 
at 873, provides that we may use other reasonable methods. In this 
case, the margin assigned to the only company investigated is based on 
adverse facts available. Therefore, consistent with the SAA, we are 
using an alternative method. As our alternative, we are basing the all 
others rate on a simple average of the margins in the petition, 43.85 
percent.

Interested Party Comments

Comment Use of Facts Available for Petroflex

    The petitioners argue that Petroflex refused to allow verification 
of its questionnaire responses and, therefore, the Department should 
base its final determination on total facts available. Further, the 
petitioners assert that Petroflex has not cooperated with the 
Department in this investigation and that adverse inferences are 
warranted in assigning a facts available margin to Petroflex. As 
adverse facts available, the petitioners urge the Department to assign 
the highest margin calculated in the petition.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioners. As discussed above in the ``Facts 
Available'' section of the notice, as adverse facts available, we 
assigned the highest margin calculated in the petition, 71.08 percent, 
to Petroflex.

[[Page 14865]]

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we are 
directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of emulsion styrene-butadiene from Brazil, as defined in the 
``Scope of Investigation'' section of this notice, that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 4, 1998, 
the date of publication of our preliminary determination in the Federal 
Register. For these entries, the Customs Service will require a cash 
deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds 
the export price as shown below. This suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                       margin
                                                             percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroflex Industria e Comercio S.A........................         71.08
All Others................................................         43.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The all-others rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise 
except for the entries of merchandise produced by the exporter/
manufacturer listed above.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material 
injury, or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding 
will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or 
canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the 
Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs 
officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the 
Act.

    Dated: March 19, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
[FR Doc. 99-7525 Filed 3-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P