[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69719-69721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-29344]



[[Page 69719]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-825]


Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination To Revoke 
Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review and determination to revoke order in part.

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

SUMMARY: On August 6, 2002, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the 2000-2001 administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the People's Republic of 
China. This review covers three manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The products covered by this order 
are all grades of sebacic acid which include but are not limited to CP 
Grade, Purified Grade, and Nylon Grade. The period of review is July 1, 
2000, through June 30, 2001.
    We are revoking the antidumping duty order with respect to one 
manufacturer/exporter because this company has met the requirements 
under 19 CFR 351.222.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping 
margins are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of 
Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Strollo or Patrick Connolly, 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Group I, Office 2, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0629 or (202) 482-1779, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    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 regulations of the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

Background

    On August 6, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on sebacic acid from the People's Republic of China (PRC). 
See Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent 
Not to Revoke, 67 FR 50870 (Aug. 6, 2002) (Preliminary Results). The 
review covers two exporters and their respective manufacturers. The 
period of review (POR) is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001.
    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results 
of review. The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review are all grades of sebacic acid, 
a dicarboxylic acid with the formula 
(CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but are not limited 
to CP Grade (500 ppm maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA color), Purified 
Grade (1000 ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color), and Nylon Grade 
(500 ppm maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color). The principal difference 
between the grades is the quantity of ash and color. Sebacic acid 
contains a minimum of 85 percent dibasic acids of which the predominant 
species is the C10 dibasic acid. Sebacic acid is sold generally as a 
free-flowing powder/flake.
    Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, including the production 
of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and toothbrush bristles 
and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive coolants, 
polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and adhesives, 
lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings.
    Sebacic acid is currently classifiable under subheading 
2917.13.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Separate Rates

    Two of the three respondents in this case, Guangdong Chemicals 
Import and Export Corporation (Guangdong) and Tianjin Chemicals Import 
and Export Corporation (Tianjin), have requested separate, company-
specific antidumping duty rates. In the Preliminary Results, we found 
that Guangdong and Tianjin had met the criteria for the application of 
separate antidumping duty rates. See Preliminary Results, 67 FR 50871. 
We have not received any other information since the preliminary 
results which would warrant reconsideration of our separate rates 
determination with respect to these companies. We therefore determine 
that Guangdong and Tianjin should be assigned individual dumping 
margins in this administrative review.
    With respect to the third respondent, Sinochem International 
Chemicals Corp. (Sinochem International), which did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, we determine that this company does not 
merit a separate rate. The Department assigns a single rate to 
companies in a non-market economy (NME), unless an exporter 
demonstrates an absence of government control. We determine that 
Sinochem International is subject to the country-wide rate for this 
review because it failed to demonstrate an absence of government 
control.

Use of Facts Available

    As explained in the preliminary results, the use of facts available 
is warranted in this case because Sinochem International, which is part 
of the PRC entity (see the ``Separate Rates'' section above), has 
failed to respond to the original questionnaire and has refused to 
participate in this administrative review. Therefore, in accordance 
with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we find that the use of 
facts available is appropriate for Sinochem International. Furthermore, 
in the preliminary results we determined that Sinochem International 
did not cooperate to the best of its ability with our request for 
necessary information. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(b) of 
the Act, we applied adverse inferences in selecting from among the 
facts available. As adverse facts available in this proceeding, in 
accordance with the Department's practice, we preliminarily assigned 
Sinochem International and all other exporters subject to the PRC-wide 
rate the petition rate of 243.40 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate 
established in the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, and the 
highest dumping margin determined in any segment of this proceeding. 
See Antidumping Duty Order: Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of 
China (PRC), 59 FR 35909 (July 14, 1994). As explained in the 
preliminary results, we determined that this margin was corroborated in 
accordance with section 776(c) of the

[[Page 69720]]

Act in the LTFV investigation. See Preliminary Results, 67 FR 50871-72. 
There is no evidence on the record which warrants revisiting this issue 
in these final results, and no interested party submitted comments on 
our use of adverse facts available. Accordingly, we continue to use the 
petition rate from the LTFV investigation of 243.40 percent as adverse 
facts available.

Determination To Revoke Order, in Part

    The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty 
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While 
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must 
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure 
for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation 
requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit 
the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the 
subject merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the current 
review period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at 
less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold 
commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States 
in each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and (3) an 
agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department 
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject 
merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of 
such a request, the Department will consider: (1) Whether the company 
in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a 
period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the company has 
agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long 
as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department 
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the 
subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) whether the continued 
application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to 
offset dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).
    As noted in the Preliminary Results, Tianjin submitted the proper 
certifications pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), and requested 
revocation of the antidumping duty order, in part, based on an absence 
of dumping for at least three consecutive years. Because Tianjin was 
found to have made sales below NV in the preliminary results of this 
administrative review, we preliminarily determined that Tianjin did not 
qualify for revocation. As a result of changes made since the 
preliminary results of this review, however, we now find that Tianjin 
meets the first criterion of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).\1\ Moreover, 
after consideration of Tianjin's certifications and its comments 
submitted in response to the Preliminary Results, we determine that 
Tianjin is not likely to sell the subject merchandise in the United 
States below NV in the future. Furthermore, at verification, we 
examined the quantity and value of sales for all three years that form 
the basis for the request, and we confirmed that Tianjin's aggregate 
sales to the United States have been made in commercial quantities 
during each of these years. See the July 10, 2002, memorandum to Louis 
Apple from Shawn Thompson and Patrick Connolly entitled ``Verification 
of the Sales Responses of Tianjin Chemicals Import and Export 
Corporation in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Sebacic 
Acid from the People's Republic of China'' at pages 7-8. See also the 
November 7, 2002, memorandum to the file from Patrick Connolly entitled 
``Analysis of Commercial Quantities for Tianjin Chemicals Import and 
Export Corporation's Request for Revocation.'' As stated above, Tianjin 
has agreed in writing to the immediate reinstatement in the order, as 
long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the 
Department concludes that Tianjin, subsequent to the revocation, sold 
the subject merchandise at less than NV. Finally, based on our review 
of the record, there is no basis to find continued application of the 
antidumping order necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we find that 
Tianjin and its supplier, Hengshui Dongfeng Chemical Co., Ltd. 
(Hengshui), qualify for revocation of the antidumping duty order on 
sebacic acid under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i) and (3).\2\ Accordingly, we 
are revoking the order with respect to subject merchandise produced by 
Hengshui and exported by Tianjin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that the Department did not conduct an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid 
for the 1999-2000 review period. However, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(d), we are not required to conduct a review of the 
intervening year so long as we conduct a review in the first and 
third years of the three year consecutive time period.
    \2\ On October 18, 2002, Tianjin certified that Hengshui was its 
only supplier during all three years that form the basis for the 
revocation request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective Date of Revocation

    This revocation applies to all entries of subject merchandise that 
are produced by Hengshui and are exported by Tianjin, and are entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 1, 2001. 
The Department will order the suspension of liquidation ended for all 
such entries and will instruct the Customs Service to release any cash 
deposits or bonds. The Department will further instruct the Customs 
Service to refund with interest any cash deposits on entries made after 
July 1, 2001.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case brief by parties to this 
administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (Decision Memo) from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated November 7, 2002, which is 
adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised 
and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, 
is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete 
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/countrylist.htm under the heading ``China.'' The paper copy and 
electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain 
changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the 
relevant sections of the Decision Memo.
    Moreover, for these final results, we have revalued labor for both 
Guangdong and Tianjin based on the regression-based wage rate for 2000 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). For purposes of the 
preliminary results, we used the 1999 data because more recent data was 
not yet available.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margin 
percentages exist for the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guangdong Chemicals Import and Export Corporation............       1.34
Tianjin Chemicals Import and Export Corporation..............       0.47

[[Page 69721]]

 
PRC Country-Wide Rate........................................     243.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because we have revoked the order with respect to Tianjin's exports 
of subject merchandise produced by Hengshui, we will order the Customs 
Service to terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after July 1, 2001, and to refund all cash deposits collected.

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For assessment 
purposes, we do not have the information to calculate an estimated 
entered value. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific duty 
assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping 
margins calculated for all U.S. sales and dividing this amount by the 
total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment 
rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios 
based on the export prices. We will direct the Customs Service to 
assess the resulting assessment rates uniformly on all entries of that 
particular importer made during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e. less than 0.50 percent). The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
the Customs Service within 15 days of publication of these final 
results of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except 
that, for firms whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 
percent and, therefore, de minimis, the Department shall require no 
deposit of estimated antidumping duties; (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 243.40 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 requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to 
sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 7, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memo

Comments

    1. Universe of Sales.
    2. Valuation of Activated Carbon.
    3. Partial Revocation.

[FR Doc. 02-29344 Filed 11-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P