[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36328-36330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17051]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-602]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Aspirin From Turkey
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: aspirin
from Turkey.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order
on aspirin from Turkey (64 FR 9970) 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: July 6, 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 product covered by this review is acetylsalicylic acid
(aspirin) from Turkey, containing no additives, other than inactive
substances (such as starch, lactose, cellulose, or coloring material),
and/or active substances in concentrations less than that specified for
particular non-prescription drug combinations of aspirin and active
substances as published in the Handbook of Non-Prescription Drugs,
eighth edition, American Pharmaceutical Association, and is not in
tablet, capsule, or similar forms for direct human consumption. This
product is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(``HTS'') of the United States item numbers 2918.22.10 and 3003.90.00.
1 The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and
customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In its substantive response, Rhodia noted that the written
description of the scope of the order indicated that this product
was covered under not only under HTS item number 2918.22.10, but
also item number 3003.90.00. The Department agrees. Although this
item number has not been previously included in the scope section of
prior Department determinations in this case, we confirmed with the
U.S. Customs Service that both HTS item numbers were appropriate
(see Memo to File; Re: HTS Item Numbers for Aspirin). Therefore, we
have included HTS item number 3003.90.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of the Order
On July 1, 1987, the Department issued a final determination of
sales at less than fair value with respect to imports of aspirin
(acetylsalicylic acid) from Turkey. 2 The antidumping duty
order on aspirin was issued by the Department on August 25, 1987, and,
in the order, the dumping margins that were found in the final
determination were confirmed. 3 Since the imposition of this
order, the Department has conducted one administrative review.
4 The order remains in effect for all manufacturers and
exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Acetylsalicylic Acid From Turkey, 52 FR 24492 (July 1, 1987).
\3\ See Acetylsalicylic Acid From Turkey; Antidumping Duty
Order, 52 FR 32030 (August 25, 1987).
\4\ See Acetylsalicylic Acid From Turkey; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 34146 (June 23, 1998),
and Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Acetylsalicylic Acid From Turkey, 58 FR 11208 (February 24, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This review covers all producers and exporters of aspirin from
Turkey.
Background
On March 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping order on aspirin from Turkey (64 FR 9970), pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice of Intent
to Participate on behalf of Rhodia on March 15, 1999, within the
deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset
Regulations. We received a complete substantive response from Rhodia on
March 31, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset
Regulations in section 351.218(d)(3)(i). Rhodia claimed interested
party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. producer of
the domestic like product.
Additionally, Rhodia stated that it was not a participant in either
the original investigation nor the lone administrative review conducted
by the Department. However, Rhodia stated that, of the four domestic
producers originally involved in the investigation, two--Sterling Drug
and Norwich-Eaton --have since ceased production of subject aspirin.
The other two producers, Monsanto Chemical Company and Dow Chemical
U.S.A., had their aspirin production taken over by Rhone-Poulenc S.A.
Rhodia is the subsidiary of Rhone-Poulenc S.A. responsible for bulk
aspirin production and is the successor in interest to Monsanto, which
was the original petitioner.
We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent
interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) of the Sunset Regulations, the Department
determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
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
[[Page 36329]]
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 margin are discussed
below. In addition, Rhodia's 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.2). 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 when (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 considering guidance on likelihood cited above,
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 when 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.
In its substantive response, Rhodia argued that revocation of the
order will likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping of
aspirin from Turkey. Rhodia stated that compelling evidence supporting
this conclusion includes: (1) The cessation of Turkish imports
following the issuance of the order; (2) increased imports of bulk
aspirin from other countries; (3) downward pricing pressure resulting
from intense competition in the U.S. market from Chinese imports; and
(4) continuing interest in the U.S. market by Turkish producers as
evidenced by the temporary resumption of Turkish imports in 1997.
With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased
after the issuance of the order, Rhodia, citing data from the United
States Census Bureau, argued that imports of Turkish aspirin declined
significantly with the imposition of dumping duties in 1987.
Specifically, Rhodia stated that, in 1987, the year immediately
following imposition of the order, import volumes from Turkey declined
dramatically, decreasing from 1.3 million pounds to just over 200,000
pounds. Rhodia stated that imports of aspirin from Turkey continued to
decline until they completely ceased in 1990. Further, Turkish imports
remained at zero until 1997 when imports rose to just over 5,000
pounds. The 1997 shipment, Rhodia argues, was the basis for the sole
administrative review of the order, conducted for the 1996-1997 time
period. Therefore, Rhodia argues, the decline and cessation of Turkish
import volumes of bulk aspirin following the imposition of the
antidumping duty order provides a strong indication that, absent an
order, dumping would be likely to recur, because the evidence would
indicate that the exporter needs to dump to sell at pre-order volumes.
(See Substantive Response of Rhodia at 10.)
Additionally, Rhodia also argues that, because of the nature of the
market for bulk aspirin, were Turkish producers to reenter the U.S.
market, they would have to dump in order to compete. Rhodia argues that
bulk aspirin is a commodity and, as such, competition is based
primarily on price. Further, recent imports of bulk aspirin from other
countries, most notably China, have increased and, as import volumes
have increased, prices have fallen. Therefore, Rhodia argues that the
only way that Turkish producers would realistically be able to reenter
the U.S. market would be to meet the price competition posed by the low
Chinese import prices.
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department has
considered whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis
after the issuance of the order. In the administrative review covering
the 1996-1997 period, the Department determined that no dumping margin
existed for Atabay Kimya Sanayi ve Ticaret A.B. (``Atabay'') (63 FR
34146, June 23, 1998) and, therefore, a cash deposit rate of zero was
imposed for Atabay. Because neither Proces Kimya Sinayi ve Ticaret
(``Proces''), one of the two companies examined in the original
investigation, nor any other companies, other than Atabay, have been
examined in the course of administrative review, the deposit rates for
all companies, other than Atabay, continue to be the margins of dumping
found in the original investigation--38.60 percent for Proces and 32.98
percent for all others. Therefore, we determine that although there was
no dumping found for Atabay in the 1997 review period, the same cannot
be said for other Turkish producers/exporters.
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 on imports of the subject merchandise from
pre-order 1986 to 1998 (as provided by the domestic industry and
confirmed by the Department by United States Census Bureau IM146 data)
demonstrate that imports of the subject merchandise declined
dramatically immediately following the imposition of the order, and
continued to decline until 1990 when imports ceased. The only imports
of bulk aspirin from Turkey since 1990 involved just over 5,000 pounds
in 1997. We agree with Rhodia that imports from Turkey have declined
substantially since the imposition of the order in 1987 and, therefore,
we determine that, although dumping was eliminated by Atabay, its
export volumes have declined significantly since the issuance of the
order.
As set forth in the Sunset Policy Bulletin (section II.A.3), and
consistent with the SAA at 889-90 and the House Report at 63, the
Department normally will find that revocation of the antidumping duty
order likely will lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping when
dumping margins continued at any level after the issuance of the order
or when dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the order and
import volumes of the subject merchandise declined significantly or
ceased. With respect to Atabay, although dumping was eliminated in
1997, shipments of the subject merchandise have declined dramatically.
Further, with respect to all
[[Page 36330]]
other Turkish producers/exporters, antidumping duty deposit rates
remain in effect and we have no reason to believe that dumping has been
eliminated. On the basis of this analysis, in conjunction with the fact
that 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
likely to continue if the order were revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it
normally will 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 weighted-average dumping margins for two Turkish
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Atabay and Proses, and
for all other producers/exporters (52 FR 24492, July 1, 1987). The
margins calculated in that determination were 27.35 percent for Atabay,
38.60 percent for Proses, and an ``all others'' rate of 32.98 percent.
Atabay, as mentioned above, received a zero margin during the sole
administrative review for the 1996-1997 review period (63 FR 34146,
June 23, 1998). We note that, to date, we have not issued any duty
absorption findings in this case.
In its substantive response, Rhodia argued that the Department,
consistent with its Sunset Policy Bulletin, should provide the
Commission with the company-specific and all others rates from the
original investigation as the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail
if the order were revoked. Alternatively, Rhodia suggested that the
Department could conclude that higher margins would prevail if the
order were revoked. In this case, Rhodia suggests that, using Turkish
import and export statistics coupled with average U.S. import
statistics, the Department could calculate a new margin of 63.14
percent.
Consistent with section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department finds that the rates from the original investigation are
probative of the behavior of producers/exporters without the discipline
of the order. As a result, the Department determines, absent argument
and evidence to the contrary, that the margins from the original
investigation are the ones most likely to prevail if the order were
revoked. As such, we will report to the Commission the company-specific
and all others rates 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 likely lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atabay Kimya Sanayi ve Ticaret............................. 27.35
Proces Kimya Sanayi ve Ticaret............................. 38.60
All Others................................................. 32.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-17051 Filed 7-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P