[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57852-57854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28066]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-479-801]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Industrial 
Nitrocellulose From Yugoslavia

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Industrial 
Nitrocellulose From Yugoslavia.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
industrial nitrocellulose from Yugoslavia (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

[[Page 57853]]

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 Yugoslavia. 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 Yugoslavia was 
published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1990 (55 FR 
41870).1 In that order, the Department determined that the 
weighted-average dumping margin for all entries of the subject 
merchandise was 10.81 percent.2 Since that time, the 
Department has completed no 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 
Yugoslavia, 55 FR 41870 (October 16, 1990).
    \2\ However, the underlying investigation dealt with only one 
Yugoslavian company, Milan Blagojevic (``Milan''), located in 
Lucani, Yugoslavia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on nitrocellulose from Yugoslavia (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 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 Yugoslavia 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 buttress its contention, Hercules points out a drastic decline in 
import volumes of the subject

[[Page 57854]]

merchandise immediately after the issuance of the order. According to 
Hercules, after the imposition of the antidumping order, imports of the 
subject merchandise fell to zero.4 Id. The cessation of 
imports almost 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 October 16, 1990. (See footnote1, 
supra.) In 1989 and 1990, imports of the subject merchandise were 
748 and 1,041 metric tons, respectively; however, during the period 
from 1991 through 1998, the import volumes were as follows: 1991--
312; 1992--47; 1993--0; 1994--0; 1995--0; 1996--0; 1997--0; and 
1998--0 metric tons. (See Hercules' July 1, 1999 substantive 
response, Attachment 2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, Hercules indicates that, for the past five years, the 
import volumes of the subject merchandise have been at 
zero.5 Id. In conclusion, Hercules contends that Yugoslavian 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise have not been able 
to sell in the United States during the antidumping duty order regime; 
in other words, Yugoslavian manufacturers/exporters have to dump in 
order to export the subject merchandise to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See footnote 4, supra. During 1994-1998, the average import 
volume of the subject merchandise was 0 metric ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 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 declined 
substantially.6 Moreover, for the period 1994-1998, the 
United States International Trade Commission Data show a complete 
cessation of the import volumes for the subject 
merchandise.7 Therefore, the Department determines that the 
import volumes of the subject merchandise ceased 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 considered 
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 conducted since the issuance of the 
order, the margins from the original investigation are the prevailing 
and therefore effective margins. Thus, the Department determines that 
weighted-average dumping margins for the subject merchandise have 
continued above the de minimis level.
    Given that the import volumes of the subject merchandise ceased 
completely after the issuance of the order, that dumping margins above 
the de minimis level have continued since 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 Milan and 
all-others: 10.81 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 Yugoslavia, 55 FR 34946 (August 27, 
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 
the ones from the original investigation. Id.
    The Department agrees with 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 
Yugoslavian 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milan Blagojevic...........................................        10.81
All Others.................................................        10.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 99-28066 Filed 10-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P