[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57850-57852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28065]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-412-803]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Industrial 
Nitrocellulose From the United Kingdom

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Industrial 
Nitrocellulose from the United Kingdom.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
industrial nitrocellulose from the United Kingdom (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 an 
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 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 antidumping order is industrial 
nitrocellulose (``INC'') from the United Kingdom. Industrial INC 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. INC 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. INC 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 the United 
Kingdom was published in the Federal Register on July 10, 1990 (55 FR 
28270).1 In that order, the Department determined that the 
weighted-average dumping margin for all entries of the subject 
merchandise is 11.13 percent.2 Since that time, the 
Department has completed several administrative reviews.3 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: INC from the United Kingdom, 55 
FR 28270 (July 10, 1990).
    \2\ However, the underlying investigation and subsequent 
administrative reviews dealt with only one British company, Imperial 
Chemical Industries PLC (``Imperial'').
    \3\ See INC From the United Kingdom: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 66902 (December 28, 
1994), as amended, INC From the United Kingdom: Amendment of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 41876 
(August 14, 1995); INC From the United Kingdom: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 29342 (June 10, 1996); 
INC From the United Kingdom: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 6609 (February 10, 1999), as 
amended, INC From the United Kingdom: Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 11836 (March 10, 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on nitrocellulose from the United Kingdom (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 specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Hercules asserted 
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 claimed 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 indicated that it is the sole remaining U.S. 
domestic producer of nitrocellulose, was the petitioner in the original 
investigation, and has participated in all review proceedings. (See 
Hercules' July 1, 1999 Substantive Response at 1-2.)
    We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent 
interested party 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 the U.K. is extraordinarily complicated. Therefore, 
on October 12, 1999, the

[[Page 57851]]

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.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 assertion, Hercules points out that dumping of the subject 
merchandise continued above the de minimis level after the issuance of 
the order. Id. In addition, Hercules insists that a sharp increase of 
the weighted-average dumping margins in the most recent review clearly 
manifests the inability of the British manufacturers/exporters to 
successfully compete without dumping in the United States.5 
Id. In conclusion, Hercules argues that British manufacturers/exporters 
of the subject merchandise have demonstrated over the past decade that 
they have to dump in order to export the subject merchandise to the 
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See footnote 3, supra. Although weighted-average dumping 
margins of the subject merchandise decreased in each of the first 
two administrative reviews (from original investigation margin of 
11.13 percent to 6.62 percent in the first review and then to 1.48 
percent in the second review), in the third and the most recent 
administrative review, the dumping margin increased to 13.0 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department 
considered 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, the import volumes of the subject merchandise have shown an 
increasing trend. 6 Moreover, for the period between 1994 
and 1998, the United States International Trade Commission Data show 
rather substantially increased import volumes of the subject 
merchandise compared to those of pre-order. 7 Therefore, the 
Department determines that, as acknowledged by Hercules in its July 1, 
1999 substantive response at 5, the import volumes of the subject 
merchandise increased or showed an increasing trend after the issuance 
of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The import volumes of the subject merchandise are as follows 
(the order was issued in June of 1990; numbers are in metric tons): 
1989-2,430; 1990-3,279; 1991-3,415; 1992-3,931; 1993-3,828; 1994-
4,096; 1995-3,423; 1996-3,991; 1997-3,594; 1998-3,461. These numbers 
correspond exactly with the U.S. International Trade Commission 
Data.
    \7\ See footnote 6, supra. During 1994-1998, the average import 
volume of the subject merchandise was 3,713 metric tons, which 
denotes a 30.0 percent increase over the average of 1989 and 1990 
pre-order import levels, or 53 percent over 1989 import volume 
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also considered whether dumping continued at any 
level above de minimis after the issuance of the order. As indicated in 
section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and 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 were the discipline removed. After examining the 
published findings with respect to weighted-average dumping margins in 
the original investigation and from the previous administrative 
reviews, 8 the Department determines that, since the 
issuance of the order, weighted-average dumping margins for the subject 
merchandise have continued at above the de minimis level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See footnote 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that dumping of the subject merchandise continued above the 
de minimis level after the issuance of the order and that respondent 
interested parties have waived their right to participate in this 
review, 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 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.)

[[Page 57852]]

    The Department, in its final determination of sales at less-than-
fair-value, published a weighted-average dumping margin for Imperial 
and all-others: 11.13 percent.9 We note that, to date, the 
Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
INC from the United Kingdom, 55 FR 21055 (May 22, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, while acknowledging that the 
Department normally will provide the Commission with the dumping 
margins from the original investigation, Hercules argues that, in the 
instant review, the Department, nevertheless, should report to the 
Commission a more recently calculated margin because Imperial increased 
its dumping in order to increase its market share in the United States. 
(See the July 1, 1999 Substantive Response of Hercules at 6-7.) In 
addition to supplying data, which tend to indicate that Imperial's 
market share in the United States has increased after the imposition of 
the order,10 Hercules also claims that Imperial's market 
behavior of not raising its export prices,11 after a higher 
dumping margin was imposed in the most recent administrative 
review,12 suggests that Imperial intends to continue dumping 
at the recent, higher margins to hold onto or to increase its market 
share. Id. Therefore, Hercules urges, the Department should provide to 
the Commission the more recent, increased margin, because that margin 
is the better indicator of the Imperial's likely behavior in the event 
the order is revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See footnote 7, supra. Also, according to Hercules' 
business proprietary information, the magnitude of Imperial's 
increased market share is comparable to its volume increases during 
the relevant period.
    \11\ To support this, Hercules submits its business manager's 
sworn affidavit, in which the business manager indicated an absence 
of price increase by Imperial since Imperial's antidumping margin 
increased from 1.48 percent to 13.0 percent in March, 1999. (See the 
July 1, 1999 Substantive Response of Hercules, attachment 4.)
    \12\ See footnote 5, supra. In the most recent administrative 
review, the Department assessed Imperial with a higher 13.0 percent 
antidumping margin than in the previous review-1.48 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department disagrees with the Hercules' suggestion pertaining 
to the margin that is likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. 
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department indicated that when a 
company chooses to increase dumping in order to maintain or increase 
its market share, the Department may report a more recently calculated 
margin to the Commission. (See section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin.) In the instant case, however, the Department's latest 
finding of increased weighted-average dumping margins of the subject 
merchandise did not coincide with increased import volumes or increased 
market share. In contrast, the largest import volume and highest market 
share of the subject merchandise were associated with the lowest 
dumping margin.13 Therefore, the Department determines that 
it is inappropriate for the Department to report a more recently 
calculated rate to the Commission. Instead, because the margins from 
the original investigation accurately reflect the behavior of British 
producers and exporters without the discipline of an order in place, 
the Department will provide to the Commission the margins found in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The increases of the import volumes and market shares of 
the subject merchandise were simultaneous with a decrease (not 
increase) in dumping margins: in its first two administrative 
reviews, covering the period 1992 to 1993 and 1993 to 1994 , the 
Department reduced the weighted-average dumping margins for the 
subject merchandise to 6.62 (the original rate was 11.13) and 1.48, 
respectively. The three-year moving average of each of the import 
volume and the average market share of the subject merchandise 
during 1992-1994, is the highest compared to any other three-year 
period (for the market share, the average of 1992-1994 is tied with 
that of 1994-1996). See footnote 4 and 5, supra. In other words, and 
more importantly, the imposition of a sharply increased antidumping 
margin by the Department, for the review period of 1996-1997, did 
not result in increased import volume and market share. See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (``Imperial'')............        11.13
All Others.................................................        11.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 99-28065 Filed 10-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P