[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71727-71728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33223]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-427-001]


Sorbitol From France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from the petitioner, the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on sorbitol from France. This review covers 
one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise. The period of 
review (POR) is April 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999. The respondent 
failed to respond to our supplemental questionnaires. As a result, we 
are basing our preliminary results on adverse facts available. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties on entries during the POR.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
2924 (Baker), (202) 482-0649 (James).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on sorbitol from 
France on April 9, 1982 (47 FR 15391). The Department published a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order for the 1998/99 review period on April 15, 1999 
(64 FR 18600). On April 30, 1999, SPI Polyols, Inc. (petitioner) 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of 
Roquette Freres (Roquette). We published a notice of initiation of the 
review on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 28973).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise under review is crystalline sorbitol. Crystalline 
sorbitol is a polyol produced by the catalytic hydrogenation of sugars 
(glucose). It is used in the production of sugarless gum, candy, 
groceries, and pharmaceuticals.
    Crystalline sorbitol is currently classifiable under item 
2905.440.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by 
the review.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority and the 
Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
    On May 28, 1999 the Department issued its standard antidumping 
questionnaire to Roquette. Roquette submitted its response to section A 
of the questionnaire on July 7, 1999, and its response to sections B 
and C of the questionnaire on July 30, 1999. On September 23, 1999 and 
September 29, 1999 the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to 
Roquette. In an October 6, 1999, submission, Roquette informed the 
Department that it would not provide the Department with the 
information requested in the two supplemental questionnaires. The 
information in these questionnaires related to fundamental problems in 
Roquette's initial section B and C responses; absent this supplemental 
information the initial section B and C responses are unusable for 
purposes of our analysis. Therefore, we determine that the use of facts 
available is warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act 
because Roquette withheld information requested by the Department.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the 
party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 
316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ``an 
affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997), (Final Rule).
    The Department finds that in not responding to the supplemental 
questionnaires, Roquette failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we may, in making our 
determination, use an adverse inference in selecting from the facts 
otherwise available. This adverse inference may include reliance on 
data derived from the petition, a previous determination in an 
investigation or review, or any other information placed on the record. 
For this review we have determined to assign 12.07 percent as the facts 
available rate to Roquette. This rate represents the highest rate for 
any respondent in any prior segment of this proceeding. See Sorbitol 
from France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
52 FR 20444 (June 1, 1987).

[[Page 71728]]

    Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information, and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary 
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value (see H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1 
103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870(1994)).
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as adverse facts available a 
calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is 
not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin 
inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is 
not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will 
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the 
Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available 
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin)).
    As discussed above, it is not necessary to question the reliability 
of a calculated margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further, 
there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate 
as facts available. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 12.07 
percent rate is corroborated.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 
weighted-average dumping margin of 12.07 percent exists for Roquette 
for the period April 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999.
    Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 
37 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 
this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a 
statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument, not to 
exceed five pages in length. Any interested party may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the submission of rebuttal 
briefs, if any, or the first working day thereafter. See 19 CFR 
351.310(d). The Department will publish a notice of the final results 
of the administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised by the parties, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Cash Deposit

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion 
of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for Roquette will be the rate established in the final 
results of this administrative review; (2) for exporters not covered in 
this review, but covered in previous reviews or the original less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to 
be the company-specific published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, previous reviews, or 
the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be that established for the most recent period for 
the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for 
all other manufacturers or exporters will be 2.90 percent, the ``all 
others'' rate established in the final determination of sales at LTFV 
(47 FR 7459, February 12, 1982).
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 15, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-33223 Filed 12-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P