[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16904-16906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8623]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-469-007]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Potassium Permanganate 
from Spain

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Potassium 
Permanganate from Spain.

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

SUMMARY: On November 2, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
potassium permanganate from Spain (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 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: April 7, 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 order is potassium 
permanganate from Spain, an inorganic chemical produced in free-
flowing, technical, and pharmaceutical grades. Potassium permanganate 
is classifiable under item 2841.61.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS 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 
Spanish potassium permanganate.

Background

    On November 2, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the antidumping order on potassium permanganate from Spain (63 FR 
58709), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received 
a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Carus Chemical Company 
(``Carus'') on November 16, 1998, within the deadline specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Carus claimed 
interested party status under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) as a U.S. producer 
of potassium permanganate. In addition, Carus indicated that it was the 
original petitioner in this proceeding and that it has regularly 
participated in all administrative reviews. We received a complete 
substantive response from Carus 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 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct an 
expedited, 120-day review of this order.
    The Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping 
duty order on potassium permanganate from Spain is extraordinarily 
complicated. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a 
review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 
1995). (See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.) Therefore, on March 2, 
1999, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the 
final results of this review until not later than June 1, 1999, in 
accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Potassium Permanganate from Spain and the People's 
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of 
Five-Year Review, 64 FR 10991 (March 8, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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

[[Page 16905]]

margin are discussed below. In addition, Carus' 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 respondent interested party. Pursuant to section 
351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver 
of participation.
    The antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from Spain was 
published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1984 (49 FR 2277). 
Since that time, the Department has conducted three administrative 
reviews.2 The order remains in effect for all manufacturers 
and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Potassium Permanganate from Spain; Early Determination 
of Antidumping Duty, 49 FR 18341 (April 30, 1984); Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Potassium Permanganate From 
Spain, 53 FR 21504 (June 8, 1988); and Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; Potassium Permanganate From Spain, 56 FR 
58361 (November 19, 1991). Prior to the imposition of the order, the 
Department published Potassium Permanganate from Spain; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 48 FR 53589 
(November 28, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, Carus argued that ``it is highly 
likely that dumping would continue if the antidumping order in this 
case (the ``Order'') were to be revoked''. With respect to whether 
dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of 
the order, Carus stated that the uninterrupted existence of dumping 
margins for the past decade--and continued failure of IQN [Industrial 
Quimica del Nalon] to challenge this margin through annual review--
provides compelling evidence that Spanish potassium permanganate would 
be dumped in the U.S. market in the absence of the order (see December 
2, 1998, Substantive Response of Carus at page 6).
    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
after the issuance of the order, Carus, citing its own shipment data 
and official U.S. Census Bureau import statistics, argued that imports 
of Spanish-origin potassium permanganate increased by almost 250% 
between 1983 and 1986 and reached an all-time high of over 2.5 million 
lbs. in 1986, accounting for over 14% of the U.S. market. Moreover, 
Carus asserts that, during the 1983-86 period, increasing levels of 
imports were accompanied by increasing levels of dumping, not declining 
or no dumping (see December 2, 1998, Substantive Response of Carus at 
7). Carus further argues that the ability of Spanish producers of 
potassium permanganate to export large quantities of subject 
merchandise to the U.S. with dumping margins in place suggests that 
revocation of the order could prompt a massive influx of potassium 
permanganate into the U.S. at below fair market value. Carus notes that 
total imports of the subject merchandise continued in substantial 
volumes during all years when the order was in effect.
    In addition, Carus states that there are other factors which 
support the likelihood of dumping if the order were revoked. Carus 
argues that the attractiveness of the U.S. market would promote 
increased imports of Spanish potassium permanganate because U.S. prices 
of this product are at a premium while prices elsewhere in the world 
are well below U.S. levels. Furthermore, Carus asserts that Spanish 
producers have an overcapacity of the subject merchandise and see the 
U.S., with its premium prices for potassium permanganate, as a vibrant 
market where they can sell their product.
    In conclusion, Carus argued that the Department should determine 
that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were the order 
revoked because (1) dumping margins have existed and continue to exist, 
(2) shipments of subject merchandise have continued throughout the life 
of the life of the order, (3) premium prices for potassium permanganate 
in the U.S. will promote continued, if not increased, dumping by 
Spanish producers and (4) Spanish producers have an overcapacity of the 
subject merchandise and need markets, especially ones with high prices, 
in which to sell.
    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. A dumping margin above de minimis has existed throughout most 
of the life of the order, and continues to exist, for shipments of the 
subject merchandise from all Spanish producers/exporters.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Potassium Permanganate from Spain; Early Determination 
of Antidumping Duty, 49 FR 18341 (April 30, 1984); Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Potassium Permanganate From 
Spain, 53 FR 21504 (June 8, 1988); and Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; Potassium Permanganate From Spain, 56 FR 
58361 (November 19, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the 
order. The import statistics provided by Carus on imports of the 
subject merchandise between 1981 and 1998, and those examined by the 
Department (U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports), demonstrate that imports 
of the subject merchandise continued throughout the life of the order.
    Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of 
dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Deposit rates 
above a de minimis level continue in effect for exports of the subject 
merchandise by all known Spanish manufacturers/exporters. Therefore, 
given that dumping has continued over the life of the order and 
respondent interested parties have waived their right to participate in 
this review before the Department, and absent argument and evidence to 
the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is

[[Page 16906]]

likely to continue if the order were revoked.
    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 Carus' 
arguments concerning the attractiveness of the U.S. market and Spanish 
overcapacity and export orientation.

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, in its final determination of sales at less than 
fair value, published a weighted-average dumping margin for 
Asturquimica,4 a Spanish producer/exporter of potassium 
permanganate, of 5.49 percent (48 FR 53589, November 28, 1983). The 
Department also published an ``all others'' rate of 5.49 percent in 
this same Federal Register notice. We note that, to date, the 
Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Asturquimica has since merged with IQN (see Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Industrial Quimica del 
Nalon v. United States, Slip Op. 89-174 (December 21, 1989)). Since 
1989, the Department has considered IQN the successor to 
Asturquimica.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, Carus argues that the Department, as 
stipulated in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, should provide the Commission 
a more recently calculated margin. Citing the Sunset Policy Bulletin, 
Carus states that ``[a] company may choose to increase dumping in order 
to maintain or increase market share. As a result, increasing margins 
may be more representative of a company's behavior in the absence of an 
order.'' According to Carus, in the administrative review covering 
August 9, 1983 through January 10, 1984 (49 FR 18341, April 30, 1984), 
the Department determined that no dumping of Spanish potassium 
permanganate had occurred during this period justifying a cash deposit 
rate of zero. After this review, Carus argues that imports of Spanish 
potassium permanganate soared, reaching a zenith of 2.5 million lbs. in 
1986. Carus adds that when it subsequently requested an administrative 
review (53 FR 21504, June 8, 1988), a dumping margin of 16.16 percent 
was established for all imports of the subject merchandise. We note 
that this margin was decreased to 5.53 percent following litigation 
before the U.S. Court of International Trade.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to an initial court remand, this margin was changed 
to 12.87 percent (see Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 
Court Remand, Industrial Quimica del Nalon v. United States, Slip 
Op. 89-174 (December 21, 1989)). Pursuant to a second court remand, 
the 12.87 percent margin was changed to 5.53 percent (see Final 
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Industrial 
Quimica del Nalon v. United States, Slip Op. 91-43 (May 24, 1991)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carus submits that the determination of no dumping in the 1984 
administrative review precipitated an enormous influx of subject 
merchandise, being sold at less than fair value, because it was no 
longer subject to the restraint imposed by a positive margin rate. 
Carus argues that the increase in imports of Spanish potassium 
permanganate to 2.5 million lbs. from 1983 to 1986 represents an 
increase of more than 210 percent over this three year period and 250 
percent from pre-order levels just five years earlier. In addition, 
according to Carus, this increase in Spanish imports allowed Spanish 
producers/exporters to increase their percentage of the market share 
from just under 6 percent in 1982 (during the period of investigation) 
to 14.1 percent by 1986. Carus submits that the margin calculated in 
the administrative review for the period January 1, 1986 to December 
31, 1986 (53 FR 21504, June 8, 1988) is more appropriate to report to 
the Commission.
    Further, Carus reasserts its argument concerning the high price of 
potassium permanganate in the U.S. with respect to its price on the 
world market. Carus argues that export prices in non-U.S. markets for 
potassium permanganate fell by over $0.13/lb during 1997 and 1998. 
Importers in the U.S. market, however, paid a price premium of $0.25/lb 
in 1997 and $0.23/lb. in 1998.
    The Department agrees with Carus' argument concerning the choice of 
the margin rate to report to the Commission. An examination of the 
margin history of the order as well as an examination of import 
statistics of the subject merchandise, as provided in U.S. Census 
Bureau IM146 reports, confirms the scenario outlined by Carus. From 
1983 to 1986, import volumes of the subject merchandise more than 
doubled. During this period, there was a cash deposit rate of zero in 
effect. Following the request for an administrative review by Carus, 
the Department established a dumping margin above de minimis levels (53 
FR 21504, June 8, 1988). The increase in import volumes during this 
period of unrestricted market access resulted in an increase in the 
market share held by Spanish imports. According to the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, ``a company may choose to increase dumping in order to 
maintain or increase market share. As a result, increasing margins may 
be more representative of a company's behavior in the absence of an 
order.'' Therefore, given the increase in imports through 1986, 
accompanied by the increase in the dumping margin in 1986, the 
Department finds this more recent rate is the most probative of the 
behavior of the known Spanish producer/exporter of potassium 
permanganate if the order were revoked. As such, the Department will 
report to the Commission the company-specific and ``all others'' rates 
from the administrative review for the period January 1, 1986 through 
December 31, 1986 as 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 duty order would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IQN........................................................         5.53
All Others.................................................         5.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: April 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-8623 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P