[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6156-6159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2839]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-806, A-570-815]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Sulfanilic Acid From 
India 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: 
Sulfanilic Acid from India and The People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY:  On October 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on sulfanilic acid from India and The People's Republic of China 
(``China'') (64 FR 53320) 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 an adequate response filed on behalf of a domestic 
interested party and an inadequate response (in these cases no 
response) from respondent interested parties in each of these reviews, 
the Department decided to conduct expedited reviews. As a result of 
these reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping 
duty orders would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of 
dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Reviews section 
of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark D. Young 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-
3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: February 8, 2000.

Statute and Regulations

    These reviews were conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Act. The Department's procedures for conducting 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 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 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 products covered by these orders are all grades of sulfanilic 
acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or 
purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid (sodium 
sulfanilate). The principal differences between the grades are the 
undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble 
materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as 
dry free flowing powders. Technical sulfanilic acid contains 96 percent 
minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent 
maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid contains 98 
percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline, and 0.25 
percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Sodium salt of sulfanilic 
acid (sodium sulfanilate) is a granular or crystalline material 
containing 75 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum 
aniline, and 0.25

[[Page 6157]]

percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent 
sulfanilic acid content. The merchandise is classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings 
2921.42.22 and 2921.42.24.20.\1\ Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description 
of the scope of these orders are dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ HTSUS subheadings for sulfanilic acid and sodium salts of 
sulfanilic acid have changed since the issuance of this order. The 
petitioner asserts that the HTSUS subheading for sulfanilic acid was 
2921.42.24.20 in 1993 and has remained at 2921.42.22 since 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These reviews cover imports from all manufacturers and exporters of 
sulfanilic acid from India and China.

History of the Orders

India

    The Department published its final affirmative determination of 
sales at less than fair value (``LTFV'') with respect to imports of 
sulfanilic acid from India on January 8, 1993 (58 FR 3251). In this 
determination, the Department published a weighted-average dumping 
margin for all manufacturers/producers/exporters of 114.8 percent. 
However, consistent with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act, which 
prohibits assessing antidumping duties on the portion of the margin 
attributable to an export subsidy, we established, for duty deposit 
purposes, an estimated antidumping duty deposit rate of 71.09 percent. 
The Department issued its antidumping duty order on sulfanilic acid 
from India on March 2, 1993.\2\ The Department has not conducted an 
administrative review of this order since its imposition. The order 
remains in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise from India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Sulfanilic Acid from 
India, 58 FR 12025 (March 2, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

China

    On July 6, 1992, the Department published its affirmative final 
determination of sales at LTFV regarding sulfanilic acid from China (57 
FR 29705). The Department issued its antidumping duty order on August 
19, 1992.\3\ In this determination, the Department published weighted-
average dumping margins for one company and an ``all others'' rate. 
Since the order was issued, the Department has conducted four 
administrative reviews with respect to sulfanilic acid from China.\4\ 
The order remains in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the 
subject merchandise from China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid from the 
People's Republic of China, 57 FR 37524 (August 19, 1992).
    \4\ See Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Administrative Review, 61 FR 53711 (October 15, 
1996); 61 FR 53702 (October 15, 1996); 62 FR 48597 (September 16, 
1997); 63 FR 63834 (November 17, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On October 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from India and China (64 FR 
53320), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. We received a Notice of 
Intent to Participate, in each of the two sunset reviews, on behalf of 
National Ford Chemical Company (``NFC''), by October 15, 1999, within 
the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. Pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act, NFC claimed 
interested party status as a U.S. manufacturer whose workers are 
engaged in the production of domestic like products. Moreover, NFC 
claims that it was a petitioner in the original investigation and, with 
respect to China, a domestic interested party in each of the six 
initiated administrative reviews. The Department received a complete 
substantive response from NFC, in each of the two sunset reviews, by 
November 1, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset 
Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a 
substantive response from any respondent interested party to these 
proceedings. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the 
Department determined to conduct expedited, 120-day, reviews of these 
orders.

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 these determinations, 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 shall provide to the International Trade 
Commission (``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margins of dumping 
likely to prevail if the orders were revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins are discussed 
below. In addition, NFC's comments with respect to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins are addressed 
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 it normally 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 the guidance on likelihood cited above, section 
751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine 
that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested party waives its 
participation in the sunset review. In these reviews, the Department 
did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested 
party. Under section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this 
constitutes a waiver of participation.
    In its substantive response, NFC argues that the substantial 
decline (or cessation, with respect to India) in the volume of imports 
of sulfanilic acid from the subject countries following the issuance of 
the order demonstrates the inability of the producers from subject 
countries to sell in the United States at any significant volume 
without dumping. NFC argues further that revocation of the antidumping 
duty orders in these sunset reviews would likely lead to a continuation 
or recurrence of dumping by Indian and Chinese producers/manufacturers. 
NFC

[[Page 6158]]

supports this argument with evidence showing that, since the imposition 
of the orders, respondents have generally reduced (ceased with respect 
to Indian imports) their shipments to the United States. Therefore, NFC 
asserts it is likely that Indian and Chinese producers would need to 
dump in order to sell sulfanilic acid in any significant quantities in 
the United States.

India

    With respect to subject merchandise from India, NFC maintains that, 
in the years preceding the order, India was a major foreign supplier of 
the subject merchandise to the U.S. market. Following the issuance of 
the order, it asserts, Indian imports have ceased completely. 
Furthermore, NFC comments, deposit rates for Indian manufacturers of 
sulfanilic acid continue to exist at 71.09 percent. In sum, it argues, 
cessation of imports following the imposition of the order and high 
dumping margins, in conjunction with the fact that Indian manufactures 
never availed themselves of the administrative review process to 
demonstrate that dumping has ceased or abated, provides clear evidence 
that the Indian producers are incapable of selling at fair value in the 
U.S. market.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See November 1, 1999, Substantive Response of NFC, regarding 
sulfanilic acid from India at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

China

    NFC argues that the imposition of the antidumping duty order had a 
dramatic effect on subject import volumes from China. NFC states that 
in the years following the order, imports of the subject merchandise 
from China dropped nearly 40 percent. Moreover, NFC asserts, import 
volumes of the subject sulfanilic acid from China have remained low, 
relative to the pre-order levels. Furthermore, NFC mentions, that there 
has been a reduction in the Chinese producers' share of U.S. domestic 
consumption of sulfanilic acid. This decline in imports and share of 
U.S. domestic consumption, NFC adds, coupled with above de minimis 
dumping margins demonstrates that Chinese manufacturers cannot maintain 
a presence in the U.S. market without dumping.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See November 1, 1999, Substantive Response of NFC, regarding 
sulfanilic acid from China at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, or imports ceased 
after the issuance of the order, the Department may reasonably infer 
that dumping would continue or recur if the discipline were removed. As 
pointed out above, dumping margins above de minimis continue to exist 
for shipments of the subject merchandise from India and China.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considers the volume of imports before and after issuance of the order. 
As outlined in each section above, NFC argues that a significant 
decline in the volume of imports of the subject merchandise from China 
and a cessation of imports with regard to India since the imposition of 
the orders, provides further evidence that dumping would continue or 
recur if the orders were revoked. In its substantive response, NFC 
provided statistics demonstrating the decline/cessation in import 
volumes of sulfanilic acid from China and India. The Department 
disagrees, in part, with NFC's arguments that Chinese imports of the 
subject merchandise fell sharply after the order was imposed and never 
regained pre-order volumes. In 1992 and 1993 the import volume of the 
subject merchandise did significantly drop below pre-order levels. 
However, in 1994 and 1995 import levels of the subject merchandise 
exceeded pre-order volumes.\7\ The Department also disagrees, in part, 
with NFC's assertion that Indian imports of the subject merchandise 
ceased completely since the issuance of the order.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Nevertheless, in 1996-1999 import volumes dropped well below 
pre-order levels.
    \8\ In 1994 Indian manufacturers exported 20,000 kg. of 
sulfanilic acid to the United States, and 36,000 kg. in 1996. Only 
since 1997 have the imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
completely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, in conducting its sunset reviews, the Department 
considers the weighted-average dumping margins and volume of imports 
when determining whether revocation of an antidumping duty order would 
lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. Based on this 
analysis, the Department finds that the existence of dumping margins 
above de minimis levels and a reduction/cessation in export volumes 
after the issuance of the order is highly probative of the likelihood 
of continuation or recurrence of dumping. A deposit rate above a de 
minimis level continues for exports of the subject merchandise by all 
known Indian and Chinese manufacturers/exporters. Therefore, given that 
dumping has continued and import volumes have declined significantly or 
ceased after the imposition of the order, the respondent interested 
parties waived participation in these reviews, and absent argument and 
evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is 
likely to continue or recur if the orders were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it 
normally will 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.) We note that, to date, the Department has not issued any 
duty absorption findings in any of these cases.
    In its substantive response, NFC recommends that the Department 
adhere to its general practice of selecting dumping margins from the 
original investigation. Regarding companies not reviewed in the 
original investigations, NFC suggests that the Department report to the 
Commission the ``all others'' rate published in the original 
investigations. Specifically, NFC recommends that the Department report 
a margin of 71.09 percent for all manufacturers/producers/exporters 
under the order on India and with respect to the order on China, 19.14 
percent for China National Chemicals Import & Export Corporation, Hebei 
Branch and 85.20 for all other producers. Since the Department has not 
conducted an administrative review of sulfanilic acid from India, and 
imports of Chinese and Indian sulfanilic acid to the United States have 
decreased dramatically since the issuance of the order, the Department 
has decided that it would not be appropriate to use a more recently 
calculated rate.
    The Department agrees, with NFC that the margins calculated in the 
original investigations are probative of the behavior of Indian and 
Chinese producers/exporters if the orders were revoked, as they are the 
only margins which reflect their actions absent the discipline of the 
orders. Therefore, the Department will report to the Commission the 
company-specific and ``all others''rates from the original 
investigations as contained in the Final Results of Reviews section of 
this notice. As noted above, in the original investigation the 
Department

[[Page 6159]]

determined the margin of dumping for all manufacturers/producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise from India to be 114.80 percent, 
and established an antidumping duty deposit rate of 71.09 percent after 
taking into account the 43.71 percent export subsidy rate. Therefore, 
we will report to the Commission the margins from the original 
investigations as contained in the Final Results of Reviews section of 
this notice.

Final Results of Reviews

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

India

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters...................        * 114.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (71.09 as adjusted for CVD)

China

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Chemicals Import & Export Corporation,              19.14
 Hebei Branch...........................................
All Others..............................................           85.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    These five-year (``sunset'') reviews and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 31, 2000.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-2839 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P