[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 162 (Monday, August 23, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45949-45950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21841]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-427-098]


Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from a domestic interested party, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on anhydrous sodium metasilicate from France for 
the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.
    We have preliminarily determined a dumping margin in this review. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on subject merchandise manufactured or exported by 
Rhone-Poulenc, S.A.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 23, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacey King or Mark Ross, Office of 
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-1757/4784.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 (1998).

Background

    On January 14, 1999, the Department published a notice of 
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (64 FR 2470) with 
respect to the antidumping duty order on anhydrous sodium metasilicate 
(ASM) from France. The petitioner, PQ Corporation, requested a review 
of Rhone-Poulenc, S.A. on January 21, 1999. In response to PQ 
Corporation's request, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of an administrative review on February 22, 1999 (63 FR 20378), in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b).

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by the review are shipments of ASM, a crystallized 
silicate which is alkaline and readily soluble in water. Applications 
include waste paper de-inking, ore-flotation, bleach stabilization, 
clay processing, medium or heavy duty cleaning, and compounding into 
other detergent formulations. This merchandise is classified under 
HarmonizedTariff Schedules (HTS) item numbers 2839.11.00 and 
2839.19.00. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review is from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 
1998.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (3) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping 
statute, or (4) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, then the Department 
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 
available in determining dumping margins.
    The Department sent Rhone-Poulenc a questionnaire on March 1, 1999, 
with a deadline of April 7, 1999, for providing information necessary 
to conduct a review of any shipments that the firm may have made to the 
United States during the period of review. Rhone-Poulenc did not 
respond to our original questionnaire or to a follow-up letter that we 
sent to the company. Because Rhone-Poulenc has withheld information we 
requested and has, in fact, made no effort to participate in this 
proceeding, we must, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (D) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available to determine its dumping margins.
    Based on the lack of any response from Rhone-Poulenc, we find that 
the company has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Therefore, pursuant 
to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an inference that 
is adverse to the interests of Rhone-Poulenc in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available. This section also provides that an 
adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination in the investigation segment of the 
proceeding, a previous review under section 751 of the Act or a 
determination under section 753 of the Act, or any other information 
placed on the record. In addition, the Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) 
(SAA), establishes that the Department may employ an adverse inference 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' SAA at 870. In 
employing adverse inferences, the Department is instructed to consider 
``the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of 
cooperation.'' Id. Because we find that Rhone-Poulenc failed to 
cooperate by not complying with our request for information and in 
order to ensure that it does not benefit from its lack of cooperation, 
we are employing an adverse inference in selecting from the facts 
available.
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 
The Department will also consider the extent to which a party may 
benefit from its own lack of cooperation in selecting a rate. See 
Roller Chain Other Than Bicycle, From Japan; Notice of Final Results 
and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
69472, 69477 (November 10, 1997), and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 
and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 53808, 53820-21 (October 16, 1997).

[[Page 45950]]

    In order to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce Rhone-Poulenc's cooperation, we have assigned this company as 
adverse facts available a rate of 60.0 percent, the margin calculated 
in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation using 
information provided by Rhone-Poulenc, S.A. (see Anhydrous Sodium 
Metasilicate from France; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 45 FR 77498 (November 24, 1980)).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for 
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding, such as 
that used here, constitutes secondary information. The SAA provides 
that to ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy 
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
SAA at 870. As explained in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and 
relevance of the information used.
    Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling 
expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department 
can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. In an administrative review, if the 
Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the 
highest dumping margin as adverse BIA because the margin was based on 
another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an 
unusually high margin). There is no evidence of circumstances 
indicating that the margin used as facts available in this review is 
not appropriate. Therefore, the requirements of section 776(c) of the 
Act are satisfied.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines 
that a margin of 60 percent exists for Rhone Poulenc for the period 
January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.
    Interested parties may request a hearing not later than 30 days 
after publication of this notice. Interested parties may also submit 
written arguments in case briefs on these preliminary results within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than 
five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement 
of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held three days after the scheduled date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including a discussion of its analysis of issues 
raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. The Department 
will issue final results of this review within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results.
    Upon completion of the final results in this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The rate will be assessed uniformly 
on all entries of Rhone-Poulenc merchandise made during the period of 
review. The Department will issue appraisement instructions for Rhone-
Poulenc merchandise directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Rhone-Poulenc, 
S.A., will be the rate established in the final results of this review; 
(2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of 
this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 60.0 percent, the 
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (45 FR 77498, 
November 24, 1980). This deposit rate, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 9, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-21841 Filed 8-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P