[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56054-56057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27857]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-852]


Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is currently conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on creatine 
monohydrate from the People's Republic of China. The period of review 
is July 30, 1999 through January 31, 2001. This review covers imports 
of subject merchandise from one producer/exporter.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties based on the difference between the U.S. price and 
normal value.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

[[Page 56055]]


EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blanche Ziv or Annika O'Hara, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4207, (202) 482-3798, respectively.

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 
(``Department'') regulations are 19 CFR part 351 (April 2001).

Background

    On February 4, 2000, the Department published an antidumping order 
on creatine monohydrate from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). 
See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Creatine Monohydrate from the 
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 5583 (February 4, 2000). On February 
14, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register an 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 66 FR 
10269 (February 14, 2001).
    On February 23, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), a 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Blue Science 
International Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (``Blue Science''), 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of this 
order. On March 22, 2001, we published a notice of initiation of this 
review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocations in Part, 66 FR 
16037 (March 22, 2001). The period of this review (``POR'') is July 30, 
1999 through January 31, 2001.
    On March 27, 2001, we issued a questionnaire to Blue Science. We 
issued a supplemental questionnaire on July 19, 2001. We received 
responses to the original and supplemental questionnaires on May 24 and 
August 24, 2001, respectively.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are creatine monohydrate, which is 
commonly referred to as ``creatine.'' The chemical name for creatine 
monohydrate is N-(aminoiminomethyl)-N-methylgycine monohydrate. The 
Chemical Abstracts Service (``CAS'') registry number for this product 
is 6020-87-7. Creatine monohydrate in its pure form is a white, 
tasteless, odorless powder, that is a naturally occurring metabolite 
found in muscle tissue. Creatine monohydrate is provided for in 
subheading 2925.20.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading and the CAS registry 
number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in nonmarket economy (``NME'') 
countries a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to 
exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent 
of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 
(May 2, 1944) (``Silicon Carbide'').
    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) An 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 
56 FR at 20589.
    A de facto analysis of absence of government control over exports 
is based on four factors--whether the respondent: (1) Sets its own 
export prices independent of the government and other exporters; (2) 
retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; 
(3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the 
selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    In the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China 64 FR 
71104 (December 20, 1999) (``LTFV Investigation''), we determined that 
there was de jure and de facto absence of government control of each 
company's export activities and determined that each company warranted 
a company-specific dumping margin. For the POR, Blue Science responded 
to the Department's request for information regarding separate rates. 
We have found that the evidence on the record is consistent with the 
final determination in the LTFV Investigation and Blue Science 
continues to demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
and in fact, with respect to its exports, in accordance with the 
criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.

Export Price

    For U.S. sales made by Blue Science, we calculated an export price, 
in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States 
prior to importation into the United States and the facts did not 
otherwise warrant use of constructed value export price.
    For these sales, we calculated export price based on the price to 
unaffiliated purchasers.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the normal value (``NV'') using a factors-of-production 
methodology if: (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country; 
and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using 
home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value (``CV'') 
under section 773(a) of the Act.
    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all 
previous antidumping cases. Furthermore, available information does not 
permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country 
prices, or CV under section 773(a) of the Act. In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign 
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. The party in this proceeding has not contested 
such treatment in this review. Therefore, we treated the PRC as an NME 
country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the 
factors of production in a surrogate country.
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market

[[Page 56056]]

economy countries that: (1) are at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME, and (2) are significant producers of 
comparable merchandise. The Department has determined that India, 
Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development (see 
Memorandum from Jeff May, Director, Office of Policy, to Susan Kuhbach, 
Senior Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1, July 30, 2001). 
According to the available information on the record, we have 
determined that India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. Although we have no information to indicate that India 
produces creatine, it does produce other products within the same 
customs heading, and it produces other fine chemicals with nutritional 
characteristics. Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian values 
for the PRC producer's factors of production. We have obtained and 
relied upon publicly available information wherever possible.

Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by the companies in the PRC 
which produced creatine for Blue Science during the POR. To calculate 
NV, the reported unit factor quantities were multiplied by publicly 
available Indian values.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices. For the distances 
reported, we added to Indian CIF surrogate values a surrogate freight 
cost using the reported distances from the PRC port to the PRC factory, 
or from the domestic supplier to the factory. This adjustment is in 
accordance with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit's (``CAFC'') decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 
3d 1401, 1807-1908 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For those values not 
contemporaneous with the POR and quoted in a foreign currency, we 
adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices published in the 
International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.
    Many of the inputs in the production of creatine are considered 
business proprietary data by the respondent. Due to the proprietary 
nature of this data, we are unable to discuss many of the inputs in 
this preliminary results notice. For a complete analysis of surrogate 
values, see the memorandum from the Team to the file (``Factors of 
Production Memorandum''), dated October 31, 2001.
    We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    Consistent with our approach in Manganese Metal from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 66 FR 15076 (March 15, 2001) (``Manganese Metal''), we 
calculated our surrogate value for electricity based on electricity 
rate data from the Energy Data Directory & Yearbook, (1999/2000) 
published by Tata Energy Research Institute. We based the value of 
diesel on prices reported by the International Energy Agency (``IEA''), 
1st quarter 2000.
    We based our calculation of factory overhead, SG&A, and profit on 
the financial statements of Sanderson Industries, Ltd. (``Sanderson''), 
an Indian chemical producer. The products produced by Sanderson appear 
to be manufactured using bulk chemical processes, similar to the 
processes used by the PRC creatine producers. These were the same 
values used in the LTFV Investigation.
    To value truck freight rates, we used a 2000 rate from a quote from 
an Indian trucking company.
    For packing materials we used import values from the Monthly 
Foreign Trade Statistics of India; Volume II Imports.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily find the weighted average dumping margin for Blue 
Science for the period July 30, 1999, through January 31, 2001 to be 
8.13 percent.
    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 
CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held approximately 
44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first 
working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, 
which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may 
be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties 
who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a 
statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a 
table of authorities. The Department will issue a notice of final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 120 days 
of publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon 
issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any 
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are 
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the 
assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment 
purposes, we calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the 
subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. 
sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered 
value of the sales to that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash-deposit rate for the company included in this 
administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for the 
company by the total net value of the company's sales during the review 
period.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of creatine 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 Blue Science will 
be the rate established in the final results of this administrative 
review; (2) for a company previously found to be entitled to a separate 
rate and for which no review was requested, the cash deposit rate will 
be the rate established in the most recent review of that company; (3) 
the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 153.70 
percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV investigation; and 
(4) the cash deposit rate for a non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise 
from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that 
exporter. These cash requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding

[[Page 56057]]

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: October 31, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-27857 Filed 11-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P