[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44283-44284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19143]



[[Page 44283]]

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

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, 2002, through December 31, 2002.
    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 Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on subject merchandise 
manufactured or exported by Rhodia HPCII.
     We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Susan Lehman or Richard Rimlinger, 
AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 3, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: 202-482-0180 or 202-482-4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 2, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' 
(68 FR 80) with respect to the antidumping duty order on anhydrous 
sodium metasilicate (ASM) from France. The petitioner, PQ Corporation, 
requested a review of Rhodia HPCII (Rhodia) on January 30, 2003. In 
response to PQ Corporation's request, the Department published a notice 
of initiation of an administrative review on February 27, 2003 (68 FR 
9048).

Scope of Order

    Imports covered by the review 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 formulations. This merchandise is classified under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS) item numbers 2839.11.00 and 
2839.19.00. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review is from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 
2002.

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 matter or in the form or 
manner requested, subject to sections 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 the dumping margin.
    The Department sent Rhodia a questionnaire on March 3, 2003, with a 
deadline of April 9, 2003, 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. We sent a follow-up letter to the company 
on April 24, 2003, but Rhodia did not respond. Because Rhodia has 
withheld information we requested and has, in fact, made no effort to 
participate in this proceeding, we must, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (D) of the Act, use facts otherwise available to 
determine its dumping margin.
    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 Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 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 that 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.'' See Roller Chain Other Than 
Bicycle, From Japan; Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 69477 (November 10, 
1997), and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand; 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53820-
21 (October 16, 1997). 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 purpose of the 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 as Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 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 margin calculated in the 
original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation using information 
provided by Rhodia (then, Rhone-Poulenc, S.A.) (see Anhydrous Sodium 
Metasilicate from France; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 45 FR 77498 (November 24, 1980)). This rate is currently 
applicable to Rhodia.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for 
facts available 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

[[Page 44284]]

provides that to ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used here 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.
    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 circumstance 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) (where 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. 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, 
2002, through December 31, 2002.
    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 preliminary results within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in the 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 of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) 
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 BCBP.
    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 
section 751(a)(1) and section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 26, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-19143 Filed 7-25-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S