[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57845-57847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28063]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-812]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Industrial
Nitrocellulose From Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: industrial
nitrocellulose from Japan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on
industrial nitrocellulose from Japan (64 FR 29261) 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 adequate substantive
response filed on behalf of a domestic interested party 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 duty 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: Eun W. Cho 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-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(c) 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'') and 19 CFR Part 351 (1998) in
general. 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 order is industrial nitrocellulose
(``nitrocellulose'') from Japan. Industrial nitrocellulose is a dry,
white, amorphous synthetic chemical with a nitrogen content between
10.8 and 12.2 percent, and is produced from the reaction of cellulose
with nitric acid. Industrial nitrocellulose is used as a film-former in
coatings, lacquers, furniture finishes, and printing inks. The scope of
this order does not include explosive grade nitrocellulose, which has a
nitrogen content greater than 12.2 percent. Industrial nitrocellulose
is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'')
item number 3912.20.00. The HTS item number is provided for convenience
and customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive.
History of the Order
The antidumping duty order on nitrocellulose from Japan was
published in the Federal Register on July 10, 1990 (55 FR
28268).1 In that order, the Department determined that the
weighted-average dumping margin for all entries of the subject
merchandise was 66.0 percent.2 Since that time, the
Department has not conducted any administrative reviews. We note that,
to date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in
this case. The order remains in effect for all manufacturers and
exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Industrial Nitrocellulose from
Japan, 55 FR 28268 (July 10, 1990).
\2\ However, the underlying investigation dealt with only one
Japanese company, Asahi Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (``Asahi'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping duty order on nitrocellulose from Japan (64 FR 29261),
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice
of Intent to Participate on behalf of Hercules Incorporated
(``Hercules'') on June 9, 1999, within the deadline
[[Page 57846]]
specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.
Hercules asserts that it is not related to a foreign producer, foreign
exporter, or domestic importer of the subject merchandise and that it
is not an importer of the subject merchandise except on an occasional
spot basis. (See Hercules' June 9, 1999 Intent to Participate at 2.)
We received a complete substantive response from Hercules on July
1, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations
under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). Hercules claims interested party status
under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. manufacturer, producer,
and wholesaler of the subject merchandise. In its substantive response,
Hercules indicates that it is the sole remaining U.S. domestic producer
of nitrocellulose and was the petitioner in the original investigation.
(See Hercules' July 1, 1999 Substantive Response at 1--2.)
We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent
interested parties to this proceeding. Consequently, 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.
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--an order which was in effect on January
1, 1995. See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. The Department determined
that the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on industrial
nitrocellulose from Japan is extraordinarily complicated. Therefore, on
October 12, 1999, the Department extended the time limit for completion
of the preliminary results of this review until not later than December
28, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the
Act.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year
Reviews, 64 FR 55233 (October 12, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 margins are discussed
below. In addition, Hercules' comments with respect to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins 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 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. 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, Hercules asserts that the likelihood
of continuation or recurrence of dumping is high if the order is
revoked. (See July 1, 1999 substantive response of Hercules at 3--5).
To support its contention, Hercules points to the drastic decline in
import volumes of the subject merchandise immediately after the
issuance of the order. According to Hercules, after the imposition of
the antidumping order, imports of the subject merchandise virtually
disappeared. 4 Id. The virtual cessation of imports
immediately after the issuance of the order, Hercules further argues,
is highly probative of the likelihood of future dumping. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The order was imposed on July 10, 1990. (See footnote 1,
supra.) In 1989 and 1990, imports of the subject merchandise were
487 and 163 metric tons, respectively; however, during 1991 through
1998, the import volumes were as follows: 1991--29; 1992--80; 1993--
20; 1994--8; 1995--8; 1996--10; 1997--0; and 1998--16 metric tons.
(See Hercules' July 1, 1999 substantive response, Attachment 2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, Hercules indicates that, for the past five years, imports
of the subject merchandise have been at or near zero. 5 Id.
In conclusion, Hercules argues that Japanese manufacturers/exporters of
the subject merchandise have not been able to sell during the
antidumping duty order regime; in other words, Japanese manufacturers/
exporters have to dump in order to export the subject merchandise to
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See footnote 3, supra. During 1994-1998, the average import
volume of the subject merchandise was only 8.4 metric tons, which
was about 2.58 percent of the average imports of 1989 and 1990, or
1.72 percent of 1989 imports alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department considers
the import volumes of the subject merchandise before and after the
issuance of the order. The data supplied by Hercules and those of the
United States Census Bureau IM146s and the United States International
Trade Commission indicate that, since the imposition of the order,
import volumes of the subject merchandise have declined substantially.
6 Moreover, for the period 1994-1998, the United States
International Trade Commission Data shows rather insignificant import
volumes for the subject merchandise. 7 Therefore, the
Department determines that the import volumes of the subject
merchandise decreased significantly after the issuance of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See footnote 3, supra. The numbers supplied by Hercules
exactly correspond with those of the U.S. International Trade
Commission Data.
\7\ See footnote 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and House Report at 63-64, the Department also considers
whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the
issuance of the order. If companies continue dumping with the
discipline of an order in place, the Department may reasonably infer
that dumping would continue were the discipline removed. Because no
administrative review has been
[[Page 57847]]
conducted since the issuance of the order, the margins from the
original investigation are the prevailing margins. Thus, the Department
determines that weighted-average dumping margins for the subject
merchandise have continued at above the de minimis level.
Given that dumping margins above de minimis continue in effect
after the issuance of the order, that the import volumes of the subject
merchandise decreased substantially after the issuance of the order,
and that respondent interested parties have waived their right to
participate in this review, the Department agrees with Hercules'
contention that dumping is likely to continue if the order is revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will
normally 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 a weighted-average dumping margin for Asahi and
all-others: 66.00 percent. 8 We note that, to date, the
Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Industrial Nitrocellulose from Japan, 55 FR 21053 (May 22, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, Hercules urges the Department to
report to the Commission the dumping margins from the original
investigation as the margins likely to prevail. (See the July 1, 1999
Substantive Response of Hercules at 6.) Hercules argues that, since the
Department has not conducted any administrative reviews pertaining to
the instant order, the best and only possible recommendation the
Department can make, regarding margins that are likely to prevail, is
to rely upon the rates from the original investigation. Id.
The Department agrees with the Hercules' suggestion pertaining to
the margin that is likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Because
the margins from the original investigation reflect the behavior of
Japanese producers/exporters without the discipline of an order in
place, the Department will provide to the Commission the margins found
in the original investigation. Absent argument and evidence to the
contrary, the Department sees no reason to change its usual practice of
selecting the rate from the original investigation. We will report to
the Commission the company-specific and all-others rate 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asahi Chemical Industry Co., Ltd............................ 66.00
All Others.................................................. 66.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Dated: October 21, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-28063 Filed 10-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P