[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