[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