[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73515-73518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33977]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-412-805; A-428-807; A-570-805]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Sulfur Chemicals 
(Sodium Thiosulfate) From the United Kingdom, Germany, and the People's 
Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: sulfur 
chemicals (sodium thiosulfate) from the United Kingdom, Germany, and 
the People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on sulfur chemicals (sodium thiosulfate) from the United Kingdom, 
Germany, and the People's Republic of China (64 FR 35588) pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On 
the basis of notices of intent to participate and adequate substantive 
comments filed on behalf of Calabrian Corporation, a domestic 
interested party, and inadequate response (in these cases, no response) 
from respondent interested parties, the Department determined to 
conduct expedited reviews. As a result of these reviews, the Department 
finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to 
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated 
in the Final Results of Reviews section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    These reviews were 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 in 19 CFR Part 351 
(1999) in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues 
relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in 
the

[[Page 73516]]

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 merchandise covered by the antidumping duty orders includes all 
grades of sodium thiosulfate, in dry or liquid form, used primarily to 
dechlorinate industrial waste water, from the United Kingdom, Germany, 
and the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The chemical composition 
of sodium thiosulfate is Na2S2O3. 
Currently, subject merchandise is classifiable under item number 
2832.30.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). The above HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    There have been no scope rulings for the above orders on imports of 
sodium thiosulfate from the subject countries.

History of the Orders

    In the original investigations, covering the period February 1, 
1990, through July 31, 1990, the Department determined the following 
weighted-average dumping margins: 100.40 percent for Th. Goldschmidt AG 
(``Goldschmidt''), the German respondent, and ``all others'' (55 FR 
51749, December 17, 1990); 50.13 percent for William Blythe & Co., Ltd. 
(``Blythe''), the British respondent, and ``all others'' (id.); and a 
country-wide rate of 25.57 percent for all producers/exporters of 
subject merchandise from the PRC (56 FR 2904, January 25, 1991).
    Since the issuance of these orders, there has been one 
administrative review of the order on imports from the PRC, covering 
the period December 12, 1990, through January 31, 1992, in which China 
National Chemicals Import and Export Corporation (``Sinochem'') and 
``all others'' were assigned a margin of 148.42 percent ad valorem.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Sodium Thiosulfate From the People's Republic of China; 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 58 FR 12934 
(March 8, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On July 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on sodium thiosulfate from the United Kingdom, 
Germany, and the PRC (64 FR 35588), pursuant to section 751(c) of the 
Act. the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on 
behalf of Calabrian Corporation (``Calabrian'') within the deadline 
(July 15, 1998) specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations in all three reviews. As the petitioner in the original 
investigations and a participant in the administrative review of the 
order on imports from the PRC, Calabrian claimed interested-party 
status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. producer of the 
domestic like product. Subsequently, we received Calabrian's complete 
substantive responses to the notice of initiation on August 2, 1999. 
Although we received a Notice of Intent to Participate from General 
Chemical Corporation in the German order and an application for release 
of business proprietary information under administrative protective 
order (``APO'') from Blythe in the British order, we did not receive a 
substantive response from either of the parties. Without a substantive 
response from any respondent interested party, the Department, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), determined to conduct expedited, 120-
day reviews of these orders.
    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 (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 
1995). On November 16, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset 
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on sodium thiosulfate from the 
United Kingdom, Germany, and the PRC are extraordinarily complicated 
and, therefore, the Department extended the time limit for completion 
of the final results of these reviews until not later than January 27, 
2000, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 62167 (November 16, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping duty orders 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 duty 
order, and it 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 margin are discussed 
below. In addition, Calabrian's comments with respect to continuation 
or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin for each of 
the orders 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 duty 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 consideration of 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 
reviews, 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.
    Calabrian argues that revocation of the orders would result in the 
continuation of dumping by producers/exporters of sodium thiosulfate 
from subject countries and the likelihood of dumping levels equal to or 
greater than those that existed prior to imposition of the orders (see 
August 2, 1999, Substantive Responses of Calabrian (United

[[Page 73517]]

Kingdom, Germany, and the PRC) at 3). With respect to import volumes 
for the subject merchandise from the United Kingdom and Germany, 
Calabrian asserts that German and British exports decreased 
precipitously upon the imposition of the respective orders in 1991. 
Therefore, they contend that the drop in import volumes from 1991 to 
the present is evidence that dumping would continue if the order were 
revoked. Id. With respect to import volumes for subject merchandise 
from the PRC, Calabrian asserts that Chinese exports decreased 
precipitously upon completion of the first administrative review in 
March of 1993 and remained significantly below pre-order levels through 
1996 (see August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of Calabrian (PRC) at 
4).
    With respect to whether dumping continued at any level above de 
minimis after the issuance of the order, Calabrian notes that, without 
any completed administrative reviews, British and German producers/
exporters continue to dump, albeit at reduced volumes, and continue to 
be subject to their original rates of 50.13 percent and 100.40 percent, 
respectively (see August 2, 1999, Substantive Responses of Calabrian 
(United Kingdom and Germany) at 8). Similarly, according to Calabrian, 
Chinese producers/exporters continued to dump after the order, with 
declining volumes once the final results of the first administrative 
review were issued and the antidumping duty deposit rate increased to 
148.42 percent.
    As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890, and the 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 if the discipline were 
removed. In these cases, dumping margins above de minimis continue to 
exist for shipments of subject merchandise from all producers/exporters 
from the subject countries.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the 
orders. By examining U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, the Department 
finds that, consistent with import statistics provided by Calabrian, 
imports of the subject merchandise from the United Kingdom and Germany 
declined significantly immediately following the issuance of the 
orders, and continue to remain at very low levels. Chinese imports 
increased following the issuance of the order (56 FR 6623, February 19, 
1991) and decreased dramatically only after the administrative review, 
in which the margins rose to 148.42 percent for Sinochem and ``all 
others.'' Imports from China continue to remain at very low levels.
    Therefore, the Department finds that the existence of dumping 
margins after the issuance of the orders is highly probative of the 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Deposit rates for 
exports of the subject merchandise by all known producers and exporters 
from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the PRC are above de minimis. 
Therefore, given that dumping has continued over the life of the 
orders, respondent interested parties have waived their right to 
participate in these reviews before the Department, and absent argument 
and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is 
likely to continue if the orders 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).
    Calabrian asserts that, with respect to Germany and the United 
Kingdom, the Department should provide to the Commission the company-
specific and ``all others'' margins determined in the original 
investigations as the rates likely to prevail if the orders were 
revoked (see August 2, 1999, Substantive Responses of Calabrian (United 
Kingdom and Germany) at 6). With respect to the margin on imports from 
the PRC, Calabrian asserts that the Department should report to the 
Commission the margin of 148.42 percent, from the first administrative 
review, after which Chinese imports declined significantly.
    Finally, Calabrian notes that the Department has not issued any 
determinations with regard to duty absorption under these antidumping 
duty orders. However, the company asserts that, in instances where the 
foreign exporter sells the subject merchandise through an affiliated 
importer, absent findings in these sunset proceedings that no duty 
absorption is taking place, the Department should assume that on those 
transactions duty absorption is taking place.
    The Department agrees with Calabrian's arguments concerning the 
choice of margins to report to the Commission for each of the 
countries. As noted in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the rates from the 
original investigation are the only rates that reflect the behavior of 
exporters without the discipline of the order. Absent argument or 
evidence to the contrary, in the reviews of the United Kingdom and 
Germany, we find no reason to deviate from our stated policy. 
Therefore, consistent with section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, the Department finds that the original rates are probative of 
the behavior of manufactures/exporters from the United Kingdom and 
Germany.
    With respect to the PRC, as we stated in the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, a company may choose to inrease dumping in order to maintain 
or increase market share. As a result, increasing margins may be more 
representative of a company's behavior in the absence of an order (see 
section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). In addition, the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin notes that the Department will normally consider market 
share for purposes of determining whether a more recent rate is 
probative of an exporter's behavior. However, absent information on 
market share and absent argument or evidence to the contrary, we have 
relied on Chinese import volumes in the present case. Specifically, we 
found that imports from China increased after the issuance of the 
order, from approximately 462,000 kilograms in 1990, to 1.17 million 
kilograms in 1991. At the same time, dumping increased as reflected in 
the final results of the administrative review covering December 1990 
through January 1992. Therefore, in light of the correlation between 
the increase in imports and the increase in the dumping margins of 
Sinochem and ``all others'' in the period between the original period 
of investigation and the first period of review, the Department finds 
the more recent rate from the review to be the most probative of the 
behavior of Chinese producers/exporters, were the order revoked.
    As such, the Department will report to the Commission the company-
specific and ``all others'' rates from the original British and German 
investigations and the country-wide rate for Chinese producers/
exporters determined in the 1990/92 review as contained in the Final 
Results of Reviews section of this notice.

[[Page 73518]]

    Finally, we disagree with Calabrian's assertion that we should 
assume that duty absorption is taking place under these orders in 
instances where the foreign exporter sells the subject merchandise 
through an affiliated importer. Because Calabrian did not request an 
administrative review or a duty-absorption determination in 1996 or 
1998 with respect to these orders, the Department did not conduct a 
duty-absorption inquiry.\3\ Therefore, given the lack of a finding of 
duty absorption, the Department will not assume a determination of 
duty-absorption for purposes of these sunset reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that, during the 
second and fourth administrative review of an order (or, for 
transition orders, during an administrative review initiated in 1996 
or 1998 (see 19 CFR 351.213(j)), the Department, upon request, will 
determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign 
producer or exporter subject to a finding if the subject merchandise 
is sold in the United States through an importer who is affiliated 
with such foreign producer or exporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of Reviews

    As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation 
of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
            Country               Manufacturer/exporter      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Kingdom.................  William Blythe & Co.,             50.13
                                  Ltd.                             50.13
                                 All Others 50.13.......
Germany........................  Th. Goldschmidt AG.....          100.40
                                 All Others 100.40......          100.40
China (PRC)....................  Country-wide...........          148.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 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.
    These five-year (``sunset'') reviews and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 23, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-33977 Filed 12-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M