[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65534-65537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27261]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-880]


Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Barium 
Carbonate From the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty investigation.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton (202) 482-0371 or Tisha 
Loeper-Viti (202) 482-7425, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 references

[[Page 65535]]

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2002).

The Petition

    On September 30, 2002, the Department received a petition filed in 
proper form by Chemical Products Corporation (CPC, or the petitioner). 
The Department received a supplement to the petition on October 16, 
2002.
    In accordance with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the petitioner 
alleges that imports of barium carbonate from the People's Republic of 
China (the PRC) are, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and 
that these imports are materially injuring, or are threatening to 
materially injure, an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed this petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) of the Act, and it has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping 
investigation that it is requesting the Department to initiate. See 
infra, ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition.''

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is barium carbonate, 
regardless of form or grade. The product under investigation is 
currently classifiable under subheading 2836.60.0000 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 scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations 
(Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all 
parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication 
of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's 
Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period 
of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to 
the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that the Department's industry support determination, which is 
to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on 
whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the 
petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers 
or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 25 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act 
provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic 
producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product, the Department shall either 
poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if 
there is support for the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to the law.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp.639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel 
Displays and Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 
32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    We reviewed the description of the domestic like product presented 
in the petition. Based upon our review of the petitioner's claims, we 
concur that there is a single domestic like product, which is defined 
in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above. This is consistent 
with determinations in past investigations to treat all barium 
carbonate products as a single class or kind of merchandise. See, e.g., 
International Trade Commission Notices (No. 731-TA-31 Final): 
Precipitated Barium Carbonate from the Federal Republic of Germany, 46 
FR 32698 (June 24, 1981).
    Finally, the Department has determined that, pursuant to section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, the petition contains adequate evidence of 
industry support and, therefore, polling is unnecessary. See the Import 
Administration Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist, Industry 
Support section, October 21, 2002 (the Initiation Checklist), on file 
in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department of 
Commerce building.
    We determined that the petitioner has demonstrated industry support 
representing more than 50 percent of total production of the domestic 
like product. Therefore, the domestic producers or workers who support 
the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 
732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, because the petitioner 
represents more than 50 percent of total production of the like 
product, the domestic producers or workers who support the petition 
account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for 
or opposition to the petition. Thus, the requirements of section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) are also met. In addition, the Department received no 
opposition to the petition. Accordingly, we determine that this 
petition is filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning 
of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its

[[Page 65536]]

decision to initiate this investigation. The sources of data relating 
to U.S. and home market prices and factors of production are discussed 
in greater detail in the Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise in 
our preliminary or final determinations to use any of this information 
as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may re-examine the 
information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.
    Regarding information involving non-market economy countries (NME), 
the Department presumes, based on the extent of central government 
control in an NME, that a single dumping margin, should there be one, 
is appropriate for all NME exporters in the given country. In the 
course of this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to 
provide relevant information related to the issues of the country's NME 
status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. See, 
e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).

Export Price

    The petitioner based export price (EP) on price quotes from several 
Chinese exporters within the period of investigation (POI) for the sale 
of powdered and calcined barium carbonate produced in the PRC. The 
petitioner calculated a net U.S. price by deducting inland freight 
expenses in the PRC using a surrogate value for rail freight in 
accordance with our NME calculation methodology.

Normal Value

    The petitioner alleges that the PRC is an NME country, and notes 
that in all previous investigations the Department has determined that 
the PRC is an NME. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination in the Less 
Than Fair Value Investigation of Steel Wire Rope From the People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR 12759, 12761 (Feb. 28, 2001). In accordance 
with section 771(18)(C) of the Act, any determination that a foreign 
country has at one time been considered an NME shall remain in effect 
until revoked. Therefore, the PRC will continue to be treated as an NME 
country unless and until its NME status is revoked. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, because the PRC's status as an NME remains in 
effect, the petitioner determined the dumping margin using an NME 
analysis.
    The petitioner asserts that India is the most appropriate surrogate 
country for the PRC, claiming that India is: (1) A market economy; (2) 
a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the PRC in terms of per-
capita gross national income. Based on the information provided by the 
petitioner, we believe that the petitioner's use of India as a 
surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiation of this 
investigation.
    The petitioner estimated the quantities of inputs required to 
produce powdered and calcinated barium carbonate in the PRC based on 
the petitioner's own experience and adjusted for known differences in 
production in the PRC. These known differences include: (1) The use of 
coal as a fuel source and as a material input to reduce barite ore; (2) 
the production of carbon dioxide gas by heating limestone; and (3) the 
use of kerosene to heat the calciner.
    For valuing the inputs, the petitioner attempted to use 
contemporaneous price data for the anticipated POI where it was 
available. Where this was not the case, the petitioner used information 
otherwise available as detailed below. The petitioner valued inputs of 
steam coal, limestone, lime, alum, and flocculant using Indian import 
statistics recorded for the months of January to June 2001 in the 
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India. Barite ore was valued 
using a contemporaneous price quote from an Australian producer of 
barite ore because the petitioner demonstrated that the Indian import 
statistics value was abberationally high and the petitioner was unable 
to find an import value for any other possible surrogate country. The 
values for ferrous sulfate and sodium sulfate were based on the values 
reported in the publication Chemical Weekly for the period January to 
June 2002. The value for calcium sulfate was based on a publicly 
available price quote from a price list published on the Internet by 
Indian Chemical Industries (see http://www.indian-chemicals.com). A 
value for water was based on the average industrial price in four 
Indian metropolitan areas for the period 1995-1997 as reported in the 
Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region (1997). 
Electricity was valued using data from the 2001-02 Annual Report on the 
Working of State Electricity Boards published by the Power and Energy 
Division of the Planning Commission of India. All surrogate values that 
fell outside the anticipated POI, January 1, 2002, through June 30, 
2002, were adjusted for inflation using sector-specific price indices 
(for electricity) and wholesale price indices (for all other inputs).
    To determine factory overhead, selling, general and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, and financial expenses and profit, the petitioner 
relied on rates derived from the financial statements of National 
Peroxide Ltd. (NPL) and Calibre Chemicals (CC), which are two Indian 
producers of bulk chemicals. Based on the information provided by the 
petitioner, we believe that the surrogate values represent information 
reasonably available to the petitioner and are acceptable for purposes 
of initiation of this investigation. Because the Department normally 
includes only operational income in calculating surrogate profit rates, 
we reduced NPL's profit rate to zero after deducting non-operational 
income (from property development) from its overall income.
    Based upon a comparison of EP to adjusted normal value (NV), the 
revised estimated dumping margins range from 214.17 to 308.18 percent.

Fair Value Comparison

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of barium carbonate from the PRC are being, or are 
likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports 
of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV.
    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
evident by a decline in prices, declining profitability, reduced levels 
of capacity utilization, declining shipments, lost sales and revenue 
due to PRC imports, and declining market share. The allegations of 
injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence including ITC 
import data, lost sales and revenue data, and pricing information. We 
have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding 
material injury and causation, and we have determined that these 
allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the 
statutory requirements for initiation. See the Initiation Checklist.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

    Based upon our examination of the petition on barium carbonate, we 
have found that it meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. 
Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to 
determine whether

[[Page 65537]]

imports of barium carbonate from the PRC are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless this 
deadline is extended pursuant to section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we 
will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after 
the date of this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the petition has been provided to the representative 
of the government of the PRC. We will attempt to provide a copy of the 
public version of the petition to each exporter named in the petition, 
as provided for under 19 CFR 351.203(C)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine no later than November 14, 2002, whether 
there is a reasonable indication that imports of barium carbonate from 
the PRC are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material 
injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in 
the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: October 21, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-27261 Filed 10-24-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P