[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71112-71114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32917]
[[Page 71112]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-560-810, A-580-843]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Expandable
Polystyrene Resins from Indonesia and the Republic of Korea
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Ellis or Charles Riggle at
(202) 482-2336 and (202) 482-0650, respectively; Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Initiation of Investigations
The Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).
The Petitions
On November 22, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') received petitions on certain expandable polystyrene
resins (``EPS'') from Indonesia and the Republic of Korea (``Korea'')
filed in proper form by BASF Corporation, Huntsman Expandable Polymers
Company LC, Nova Chemicals Inc., and Styrochem U.S., Ltd.,
(collectively ``the petitioners''). On December 1 and 3, 1999, the
Department received amendments to the petitions.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners
allege that imports of EPS from the above-mentioned countries are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such
imports are materially injuring an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed these petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to each of the
antidumping investigations they are requesting the Department to
initiate (see Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions,
below).
Scope of Investigations
The scope of these investigations includes certain expandable
polystyrene resins in primary forms; namely, raw material or resin
manufactured in the form of polystyrene beads, whether of regular
(shape) type or modified (block) type, regardless of specification,
having a weighted-average molecular weight of between 160,000 and
260,000, containing from 3 to 7 percent blowing agents, and having bead
sizes ranging from 0.4 mm to 3 mm.
Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations is
off-grade, off-specification expandable polystyrene resins.
The covered merchandise is found in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3903.11.00.00. Although this
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the
petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which
the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the
preamble to the Department's regulations (62 FR 27323), we are setting
aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage.
The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments by
January 12, 2000. Comments should be addressed to Import
Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the
Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult
with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(2) more than 50 percent of total production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic
like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''), which is
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like
product (see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition,
the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either
agency contrary to the law.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp.
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays
and Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Rescission of
Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380-
81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition. Moreover, the petitioners do not offer a definition of
domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In this case, there is one domestic like product, which is defined
in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section, above. The Department has
no basis on the record to find the petitioners' definition of the
domestic like product to be inaccurate. No comments were received on
this issue. The Department, therefore, has adopted the domestic like
product definition set forth in the petitions.
Moreover, the Department has determined that the petitions (and
subsequent amendments) contain adequate evidence of industry support;
therefore, polling is unnecessary (see Attachments to Initiation
Checklist, Re: Industry Support, December 13, 1999). To the best of the
Department's knowledge, the producers who support the petition account
for more than 50
[[Page 71113]]
percent of the production of the domestic like product. Additionally,
no person who would qualify as an interested party pursuant to section
771(9)(A), (C), (D), (E) or (F) of the Act has expressed opposition on
the record to the petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that
this petition is filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
Export Price and Normal Value
The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department's decision to initiate these
investigations is based.
The petitioners, in determining normal value (``NV'') for Indonesia
and Korea relied upon price data contained in confidential market
research reports filed with the Department. At our request, the
petitioners arranged for the Department to contact the author of the
reports to verify the accuracy of the data, the methodology used to
collect the data, and the credentials of those gathering the market
research. The Department's discussions with the author of the market
research reports are summarized in Memorandum to the File: Telephone
Conversation with Market Research Firm dated December 3, 1999. For a
more detailed discussion of the deductions and adjustments relating to
home market price, U.S. price and factors of production and sources of
data for each country named in the petition, see Initiation Checklist,
dated December 13, 1999. Should the need arise to use, as facts
available under section 776 of the Act, any of this information in our
preliminary or final determinations, we may re-examine the information
and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.
Indonesia
The petitioners identified PT Risjad Brasali Styrindo, PT Polychem
Lindo, Inc., and PT Maspion Polystyrene as producers and exporters of
EPS to the United States. For EPS from Indonesia, the petitioners based
EP on the average unit value (``AUV'') of the merchandise as derived
from the U.S. government's IM-145 data. The petitioners calculated a
net U.S. price by subtracting from the AUV estimated costs for foreign
inland freight derived from data contained in the confidential market
research report.
NV is based upon prices for products which are identical to the
products used as the basis for the U.S. price. The petitioners
calculated NV by deducting foreign movement charges and domestic
packing expenses, and adding U.S. packing expenses. The petitioners did
not adjust normal value for differences in credit expenses because in
the Indonesian market, the terms and conditions of domestic
transactions were ``cash in advance.'' The estimated dumping margins
for EPS from Indonesia range from 94.93 to 96.65 percent.
Korea
The petitioners identified Kumho Chemicals Co., Ltd.; LG Chemical,
Ltd., Dongbu Hannong Chemical Co., Shin Ho Petrochemical Co., Ltd.,
Cheil Industries, Inc., and BASF Styrenics Korea, Ltd. as producers and
exporters of EPS to the United States. For EPS from Korea, the
petitioners based EP either on the AUV of the merchandise as derived
from the U.S. government's IM-145 data or on actual invoices to U.S.
customers and supporting affidavits from U.S. salespersons. They also
relied on data contained in the confidential market research report
regarding adjustments and deductions.
For comparisons using actual invoices and affidavits, the
petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting estimated costs
for selling agent commissions, U.S. inland freight, port charges,
international shipping charges, customs duties, and foreign inland
freight. For AUV comparisons, the petitioners deducted foreign market
inland freight.
NV is based upon prices for products which are identical to the
products used as the basis for the U.S. price. The petitioners
calculated NV by deducting foreign movement charges and domestic
packing expenses, and adding U.S. packing expenses. The petitioners
also adjusted normal value for differences in credit expenses. The
estimated dumping margins for EPS from Korea ranged from 43.79 to 89.39
percent.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of EPS from Indonesia and Korea are being, or are
likely to be, sold at less than fair value.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitions allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic
like products is being materially injured, and is threatened with
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of
the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. The petitioners explained
that the industry's injured condition is evident in the declining
trends in (1) U.S. market share, (2) average unit sales values, (3)
share of domestic consumption, (4) operating income, (5) sales, and (6)
capacity utilization.
The allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant
evidence including U.S. Bureau of the Census import data, lost sales,
and pricing information. While the petitioners did not submit
information on other injurious trends such as a decline in employment,
hours worked and wages paid, the Department assessed the allegations
and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation and
determined that these allegations are supported by accurate and
adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation
(see Attachments to Initiation Checklist, Re: Material Injury, December
13, 1999).
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations
Based upon our examination of the petitions on EPS from Indonesia
and Korea, we find that the petitions meet the requirements of section
732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty
investigations to determine whether imports of EPS from Indonesia and
Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less
than fair value. Unless this deadline is extended, we will make our
preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of
this initiation.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of each petition has been provided to the
representatives of Indonesia and Korea. We will attempt to provide a
copy of the public versions of each petition to each exporter named in
the petition, as appropriate.
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will determine, by no later than January 6, 2000, whether
there is a reasonable indication that imports of certain expandable
polystyrene resins from Indonesia and Korea are causing material
injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A
negative ITC determination for any country will result in the
investigation being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise,
these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory
time limits.
This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
[[Page 71114]]
Dated: December 13, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-32917 Filed 12-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P