[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42199-42201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20105]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-098]


Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate 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 a domestic interested party, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on anhydrous sodium metasilicate from France for 
the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. This review 
covers one producer/exporter of subject merchandise, Rhodia, S.A.
    We have preliminarily determined a dumping margin in this review. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on any entries of subject merchandise manufactured 
or exported by Rhodia, S.A.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Callen, AD/CVD Enforcement 3, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR 
part 351 (2000).

Background

    On January 18, 2001, the Department published a notice of 
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (66 FR 4796) with 
respect to the antidumping duty order on anhydrous sodium metasilicate 
(ASM) from France. The petitioner, PQ Corporation, requested a review 
of Rhodia HPCII (formerly ``Rhone-Poulenc, S.A.'') (Rhodia) on January 
23, 2001. In response to PQ Corporation's request, the Department 
published a notice of initiation of an administrative review on 
February 28, 2001 (66 FR 12758), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b).

Scope of Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of ASM, a crystallized 
silicate which is alkaline and readily soluble in water. Applications 
include waste paper de-inking, ore-flotation, bleach stabilization, 
clay processing, medium or heavy duty cleaning, and compounding into 
other detergent

[[Page 42200]]

formulations. This merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 2839.11.00 
and 2839.19.00. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order 
remains dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review is January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (3) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping 
statute, or (4) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, then the Department 
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 
available in determining dumping margins.
    The Department sent Rhodia a questionnaire on March 30, 2001, with 
a due date of May 8, 2001, for providing information necessary to 
conduct a review of any shipments that the firm may have made to the 
United States during the period of review. Rhodia did not respond to 
our original questionnaire. On May 11, 2001, the Department sent a 
follow-up letter to Rhodia. Rhodia did not respond to the letter. 
Because Rhodia has withheld information we requested and has, in fact, 
made no effort to participate in this proceeding, we must use, pursuant 
to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, facts otherwise available 
to determine its dumping margins. Because Rhodia has provided no 
information whatsoever, we find that sections 782(d) and (e) are 
inapplicable.
    Based on the lack of any response from Rhodia, we find that the 
company has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Therefore, pursuant 
to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an inference that 
is adverse to the interests of Rhodia in selecting from among the facts 
otherwise available. This section also provides that an adverse 
inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination in the investigation segment of the 
proceeding, a previous review under section 751 of the Act or a 
determination under section 753 of the Act, or any other information 
placed on the record. In addition, the Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) 
(SAA), establishes that the Department may employ an adverse inference 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' SAA at 870. In 
employing adverse inferences, the Department is instructed to consider 
``the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of 
cooperation.'' Id. Because we find that Rhodia failed to cooperate by 
not complying with our request for information and in order to ensure 
that it does not benefit from its lack of cooperation, we are employing 
an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available.
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of 
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 8932 (February 
23, 1998).
    In order to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce Rhodia's cooperation, we have assigned this company as adverse 
facts available a rate of 60.0 percent, the rate currently applicable 
to Rhodia, which is the margin calculated in the original less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation using information provided by Rhodia. 
See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France; Antidumping Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 45 FR 77498 (November 
24, 1980).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department when using 
secondary information shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
information used by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding, such as 
that used here, constitutes secondary information. The SAA provides 
that to ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy 
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
SAA at 870. As explained in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and 
relevance of the information used.
    Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling 
expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department 
can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. In an administrative review, if the 
Department chooses as total 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. See Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan; Notice of 
Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 60472, 60477 (November 10, 1997).
    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 not 
relevant. 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 Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996) (the Department disregarded the highest 
dumping margin as adverse best information available because the margin 
was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin). There is no evidence of 
circumstances indicating that the margin used as facts available in 
this review is not appropriate. We note that Rhodia and its 
predecessor, Rhone-Poulenc, have failed to participate in numerous 
prior segments of this proceeding and thus have been subject to the 
rate of 60 percent for many years. Therefore, the requirements of 
section 776(c) of the Act are satisfied.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines 
that a margin of 60 percent exists for Rhodia for the period January 1, 
2000, through December 31, 2000.
    Interested parties may request a hearing not later than 30 days 
after publication of this notice. Interested parties may also submit 
written arguments in case briefs on these

[[Page 42201]]

preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may 
be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case 
briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. 
Any hearing, if requested, will be held three days after the scheduled 
date for submission of rebuttal briefs.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including a discussion of its analysis of issues 
raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. The Department 
will issue final results of this review within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results.
    Upon completion of the final results in this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The rate will be assessed uniformly 
on all entries of Rhodia merchandise made during the period of review. 
The Department will issue appraisement instructions for Rhodia 
merchandise directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Rhodia will be the 
rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of 
this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 60.0 percent, the 
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (45 FR 77498, 
November 24, 1980). This deposit rate, 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)(2) 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act

    Dated: August 3, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-20105 Filed 8-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P