[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