[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48357-48360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-831-801; A-822-801; A-447-801; A-451-801; A-821-801; A-823-801; A-
842-801; A-843-801; A-844-801]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Solid Urea from 
Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, Tajikistan, 
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: solid urea 
from Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, Tajikistan, 
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

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

SUMMARY: On March 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on solid urea from Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, 
Ukraine, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan (64 FR 9970) pursuant 
to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). 
On the basis of the notices of intent to participate and adequate 
substantive comments filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and 
inadequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department 
determined to conduct expedited reviews. As a result of these reviews, 
the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders 
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: Martha V. Douthit 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-
5050 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: September 3, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    These reviews were 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 these antidumping duty orders is solid 
urea. This merchandise was previously subject to an antidumping duty 
order on solid urea from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
(U.S.S.R.). However, with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R., the order 
was subsequently transferred to all 15 republics (57 FR 28828, June 29, 
1992). This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') of the United States, item number 3201.10.00. 
The HTS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes 
only. The written description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    On May 26, 1987, the Department issued a final determination of 
sales at less than fair value with respect to

[[Page 48358]]

imports of solid urea from the U.S.S.R.1 In the final 
determination and subsequent antidumping duty order, the Department 
applied three weighted-average dumping margins: 68.26 percent for 
Soyupromexport (SPE), 53.23 percent for Philipp Brothers, Inc., and an 
all others rate of 64.93 percent.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 52 FR 19557 (May 26, 
1987).
    \2\ See Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 52 FR 19557 (May 26, 
1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 1991, the U.S.S.R. divided into fifteen independent 
states. On June 29, 1992, the Department transferred the antidumping 
duty orders on solid urea from the U.S.S.R. to the Commonwealth of 
Independent States and the Baltic States and announced a change in the 
names and case numbers of the antidumping duty orders. The Department 
announced a country-wide rate of 68.26 percent for each new state and 
stated that the substance of each new order would not change from the 
original order and its amended administrative review (see 54 FR 
39219).3 The Department conducted one administrative review 
prior to the division of the U.S.S.R.,4 and one 
administrative review after the division of the U.S.S.R.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Solid Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 
Transfer of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Solid Urea From the Union 
of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Commonwealth of Independent 
States and the Baltic States and Opportunity to Comment, 57 FR 
28828-02 (June 29, 1992).
    \4\ See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
Solid Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 54 FR 33262 
(August 14, 1989), and Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; Solid Urea From the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics, 54 FR 39219 (September 25, 1989).
    \5\ See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
Solid Urea From Estonia, 59 FR 25606 (May 17, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These reviews cover all producers and exporters of solid urea from 
Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, the Ukraine, Tajikistan, 
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan (collectively, ``the Former Soviet 
States'').

Background

    On March 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on solid urea from the former Soviet States 
(``FSS'') (64 FR 9970), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The 
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate for each of these 
reviews on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen 
Producers (the ``Committee'') and Agrium U.S. Inc. (``Agrium'') 
(collectively the ``domestic parties'') on March 16, 1999, within the 
deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations.
    We received complete substantive responses from both the Committee 
and Agrium on March 30, 1999, and March 31, 1999, respectively, for 
each of these cases, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset 
Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). In each of its substantive 
responses, the Committee claimed interested-party status under section 
771(9)(C) of the Act as a coalition of domestic producers of nitrogen 
fertilizers who produce domestic like product.6 In each of 
its responses, Agrium claimed interested-party status under section 
771(9)(C) of the Act and as a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in 
the United States of solid urea. Additionally, both the Committee and 
Agrium were involved in the original investigation and in the sole 
administrative review that the Department conducted of these orders. We 
did not receive a complete substantive response from any respondent 
interested party in any of these proceedings. We received an incomplete 
and, therefore, inadequate response from the Embassy of Belarus on 
April 8, 1999. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), 
the Department is conducting expedited, 120-day, reviews of these 
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen Producers is 
comprised of the following members: CF Industries, Inc., Coastal 
Chem, Inc., Mississippi Chemical Corporation, PCS Nitrogen, Inc., 
and Terra Industries, Inc. J.R. Simplot Co. is also a member of the 
Ad Hoc Committee, but is not a producer of solid urea and, 
therefore, is not participating in these reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset review 
of the antidumping duty orders on urea from the FSS are 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, the Department 
extended the time limit for completion of the final results of these 
reviews until not later than August 30, 1999, in accordance with 
section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 54 FR 36333 (July 6, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in 
making these determinations, 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 duty order, and it 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, parties' 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 duty 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 considering the 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 where a respondent interested party waives its 
participation in the sunset review. As noted above, with the exception 
of Belarus, in these instant reviews, the Department did not receive a 
response from any respondent interested party. Pursuant to section 
351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset

[[Page 48359]]

Regulations, this constitutes waivers of participation.
    In their respective substantive responses, both the Committee and 
Agrium argue that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on solid 
urea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping 
of solid urea from the FSS. (See the Substantive Response of the 
Committee at 6 and the Substantive Response of Agrium at 3.) With 
respect to whether dumping margins continued in existence after the 
issuance of the order, the domestic parties argue that dumping margins 
above de minimis continue to exist for all producers from all nine 
countries. (See Substantive Response of the Committee at 10 and the 
Substantive Response of Agrium at 5.) The Committee also states that a 
dumping margin of 68.26 percent remains in existence for imports of 
solid urea from all nine countries and that, as such, dumping is likely 
to continue if the orders were revoked.
    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
after the issuance of the original order, the domestic parties argue 
that, following the imposition of the order, imports of solid urea, 
first from the U.S.S.R. and, subsequently, from the FSS, have declined 
and have ceased with the exception of one or two shipments in very 
small volumes from Russia and Ukraine. The Committee argues that, prior 
to the imposition of the order in 1987, imports of solid urea from the 
U.S.S.R. ranged from 418,000 short tons to 843,000 short tons. (See 
Substantive Response of the Committee at 8.) In 1988, the year 
following the imposition of the order, there were no imports of solid 
urea from the U.S.S.R. Following the break-up of the U.S.S.R. and 
subsequent transfer of the order, the Committee argues that there have 
been no shipments at all from Armenia, Estonia, Tajikistan, 
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. With respect to Belarus, Lithuania, 
Russia, and the Ukraine, however, the Committee argues that it 
``believes that no * * * urea has been imported into the United States 
since 1987.'' (See Substantive Response of the Committee at 8.)
    Regarding Russia, the Committee argues that, although U.S. Census 
data report imports of solid urea from Russia in 1995, 1996, and 1998, 
it is unlikely that any of these shipments were actually shipments of 
urea. According to the Committee, shipments of Russian urea in 1998 
were analyzed by the Department and found to have been incorrectly 
classified by the U.S. Census Bureau as imports of solid urea when, in 
fact, the majority of the shipments were of either ammonium nitrate or 
urea-ammonium nitrate, neither of which is subject to this order. The 
result is that, of the 56,638 short tons originally classified as solid 
urea, only 24 short tons remain classified as solid urea, with the rest 
of the shipment being classified as a separate product. (See the 
Substantive Response of the Committee at Exhibit 2.)
    With regard to Belarusian, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian imports of 
solid urea, the Committee raises the same issue. The Committee asserts, 
in its substantive responses, that it believes that the other shipments 
from Russia in 1995 and 1996, as well as any other shipments from 
Belarus, Lithuania, and Ukraine, are also incorrectly classified and, 
therefore, argues that the Department can correctly determine that 
imports have ceased since the imposition of the orders. (See 
Substantive Response of the Committee at 9.) Barring that decision, 
however, the Committee argues that imports have declined dramatically 
or have ceased and that, as such, the Department must find that there 
is a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping if these 
orders were revoked.
    Agrium also addressed the issue of whether imports of solid urea 
declined significantly or ceased after the issuance of the order. 
Agrium argues that in 1986, the year immediately preceding the issuance 
of the order, imports of Soviet solid urea totaled 843,374 short tons. 
In the year immediately following imposition of the order, however, 
Agrium argues that there was a complete cessation of imports and that, 
from 1988 (the year of the order) until 1994, there were commercially 
insignificant quantities, if there were any imports of urea, from the 
FSS. From 1995 to 1998, Agrium argues that, when there were imports 
from the FSS, the import volumes were quite small, measuring only 
between 2 and 9 percent of import volumes from the U.S.S.R. prior to 
the imposition of the order. (See Substantive Response of Agrium at 4.) 
Therefore, Agrium argues that, because import volumes have virtually 
ceased since the imposition of the order, the Department should find 
that there is a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping if 
these orders were revoked.
    In conclusion, the domestic parties argue that there is a 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping of solid urea from 
the FSS if these orders were revoked. The domestic parties argue that 
the continued existence of dumping margins above a de minimis level and 
that the virtual cessation of imports of solid urea after the 
imposition of the order, first from the U.S.S.R. and later from these 
individual countries, is highly probative of the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping.
    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. Dumping margins above a de minimis level have existed and 
continue to exist for imports of solid urea from all producers/
exporters from each of the FSS.
    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 the domestic parties, 
specifically by the Committee, in each of these cases, and confirmed by 
the Department using import statistics from U.S. Census Bureau IM146s, 
indicate that imports of the subject merchandise from the U.S.S.R. 
ceased following the imposition of the order. Following the break-up of 
the U.S.S.R., the imports from Armenia, Estonia, Tajikistan, 
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan have remained at zero and imports from the 
other FSS have been at very low volumes. While the Committee has argued 
that the Department should find that there has been a complete 
cessation of imports of subject merchandise, it is clear that, even 
with the incorrectly classified merchandise, imports have continued 
from some FSS, albeit at significantly lower levels than the pre-
imposition levels.
    Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the almost 
complete cessation of imports after the issuance of the orders coupled 
with the existence of dumping margins after the issuance of these 
orders 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 for all producers/
exporters. Therefore, given the almost complete cessation of imports, 
that margins above de minimis levels have continued over the life of 
the orders, respondent interested parties have waived their right to 
participate in these reviews before the Department, and absent argument 
and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is 
likely to continue if these orders were revoked.

[[Page 48360]]

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it 
normally will provide to the Commission the company-specific margin 
from the investigation for each company. 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 determination. (See 
section II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)
    With respect to the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if 
the antidumping duty orders were revoked, the domestic parties argue 
that the Department should report to the Commission the margin from the 
original investigation of 68.26 percent. This rate is the weighted-
average dumping margin found in the investigation for the Soviet 
exporter, and it subsequently became the uniform cash deposit rate 
transferred to the fifteen independent states. The domestic parties 
assert that the 68.26 percent rate continues to reflect the behavior of 
exporters without the discipline of the antidumping duty orders.
    The Department agrees with the domestic parties as to the magnitude 
of the margin likely to prevail should the antidumping duty orders on 
solid urea be revoked. While dumping margins from the original 
investigation were determined by the Department, prior to the 
U.S.S.R.'s disbanding, the dumping rate was officially transferred. 
This rate continues to be applied to each of the independent states.
    Therefore, consistent with the Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin, 
we determine that the 68.26 percent rate that we calculated in the 
investigation, and subsequently transferred after the U.S.S.R ceased to 
exist, best reflects the behavior of urea producers and exporters 
without the discipline of the order in place with the exception of 
imports from Phillipp Brothers, Ltd., and Phillipp Brothers, Inc., the 
Department finds that the dumping margin of 53.23 percent, assigned in 
the original investigation, is the rate likely to prevail if the order 
were revoked.
    The Department will report to the Commission the rates at the level 
indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation 
of the antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/Exporter/Importer                 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soyuzpromexport (SPE)......................................        68.26
Phillipp Brothers, Ltd. & Phillipp Brothers, Inc...........        53.23
Country-wide rate..........................................      *68.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This rate is the new rate that applies to all former Soviet Union
  countries subject to these orders.

    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.
    We are issuing and publishing this five-year (``sunset'') review 
and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752 and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

    Dated: August 30, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-23049 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P