[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49434-49435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-21057]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-836]


Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: 
Glycine from the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: On May 24, 2002 the Department published the notice of 
initiation of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on 
glycine from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period 
March 1, 2001, through February 28, 2002. The new shipper review 
covered exports by Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (TTPC). 
See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
Antidumping New Shipper Review, 67 FR 36572 (May 24, 2002) (New Shipper 
Initiation). For the reasons discussed below, we are rescinding the 
review of TTPC.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Matthew Renkey at 
(202) 482-1386 and (202) 482-2312, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Office 7, Group III, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 29, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty 
Order: Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 16116, (March 
29, 1995). On March 29, 2002, the Department received a request for a 
new shipper review from TTPC; however, this request was not filed in 
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act) and section 351.214(c) of the Department's 
regulations. On April 29, 2002, the Department sent a letter to TTPC 
asking them to properly refile their request with the Department by May 
1, 2002. The Department allowed TTPC to correct its business 
proprietary information (BPI) as it had done with a concurrent request 
for a new shipper review in another case. See Memorandum to the File 
through Maureen Flannery from Matthew Renkey, Initiation of New Shipper 
Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China (May 17, 2002). 
On May 1, 2002, the Department received a properly filed request for a 
new shipper review from TTPC for the antidumping duty order on glycine 
from the People's Republic of China. On May 24, 2002, the Department 
published its initiation of this new shipper review for the period 
March 1, 2001, through February 28, 2002. See New Shipper Initiation.
    On May 24, 2002, the Department issued a questionnaire to TTPC. On 
July 11, 2002, TTPC responded to section A of the questionnaire, and on 
July 12, 2002, TTPC responded to sections C and D. On November 13, 
2002, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to TTPC, and 
we received TTPC's supplemental response on December 9, 2002. 
Department officials conducted verification of TTPC and its producer/
supplier, Baoding Mancheng Eastern Chemical Plant (Eastern Chemical), 
from January 20 through January 23, 2003. The results of the 
Department's verification can be found in New Shipper Review of Glycine 
from the People's Republic of China: Sales and Factors Verification 
Report for Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (TTPC Verification 
Report), and New Shipper Review of Glycine from the People's Republic 
of China: Factors Verification Report for Baoding Mancheng Eastern 
Chemical Plant (Eastern Chemical Verification Report), both dated March 
6, 2003. Public versions of these reports are on file in the Central 
Records Unit located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. On 
February 26, 2003, we issued a questionnaire to TTPC's U.S. importer. 
We published the preliminary results of this new shipper review on 
March 20, 2003. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Reviews: Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 
13669 (March 20, 2003) (Preliminary Results). In the Preliminary 
Results, we made no determination regarding the bona fides of TTPC's 
sales. In the Preliminary Results, we noted that any response to the 
questionnaire we sent to the U.S. importer would be evaluated for the 
purposes of the final results of this review.
    On March 12, 2003, we received TTPC's importer's response to our 
questionnaire. On April 18, 2003, and July 3, 2003 the Department 
issued additional questionnaires to TTPC's importer. Responses to these 
questionnaires were received on April 28, 2003, and July 21, 2003, 
respectively. Both the petitioners (Chattem Chemicals, Inc. and Dow 
Chemical Company) and respondent filed case and rebuttal briefs.\1\ On 
June 13, 2003, the Department published a notice extending the time 
limit for the final results of this new shipper review to no later than 
August 8, 2003. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit of Final Results 
of New Shipper Review: Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 68 
FR 35383 (June 13, 2003) (Final Extension Notice). In the Final 
Extension Notice, one of the reasons given for extending the time limit 
was to allow the Department more time to evaluate the bona fides of 
TTPC's U.S. sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On April 30, 2003, the Department received a properly filed 
case brief from TTPC. Petitioners also filed their case brief on 
April 30, 2003. On May 6, 2003 both parties filed their rebuttal 
briefs. Due to the fact that new factual information was submitted 
in the original versions of petitioners' case and rebuttal briefs 
and respondent's rebuttal brief, the Department instructed parties 
to refile these briefs without the new factual information on May 
16, 2003. The Department received properly filed versions of 
petitioners' case and rebuttal briefs and respondent's rebuttal 
brief on May 16, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to commenting on the bona fides of TTPC's U.S. sales, 
the

[[Page 49435]]

parties addressed, in their case and rebuttal briefs,two surrogate 
valuation issues: (1) what to use as the surrogate for the financial 
ratios, and (2) what to use as the surrogate for the drums into which 
TTPC packed its shipment of glycine. With regard to the financial 
ratios issue, respondent argued that we should use ratios based upon 
information from Indian aspirin and sweetener producers it submitted 
during the course of the review. Petitioners argued that we should not 
change the ratios we used in the Preliminary Results, or that if we 
were to decide to use a different surrogate, that we should use 
information from Indian pharmaceutical companies they had submitted 
during the course of the review. With regard to the packing material 
issue, respondent argued that we used the incorrect Indian HTS number 
to value the drums into which the glycine was packed. Petitioners 
argued that we used the correct Indian HTS number to value the drums. 
Since, as discussed below, we are rescinding this review, we need not 
address the parties' comments on these issues.

Rescission of Review

    Concurrent with this notice, we are issuing our memorandum 
detailing our analysis of the bona fides of TTPC's U.S. sales and our 
decision to rescind based on the totality of the circumstances. See 
Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini to James J. Jochum; Glycine from The 
People's Republic of China: the Bona Fide Issue in the New Shipper 
Review of Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Rescission Memo). 
The Department has determined that the new shipper sales made by TTPC 
were not bona fide because (1) the prices for TTPC's sales of glycine 
were not commercially reasonable, (2) the sales were made outside 
TTPC's normal U.S. sales channels, (3) the extent to which late payment 
was made by TTPC's importer, and (4) there were inconsistencies in the 
import documentation for the sales. Id. at 7.
    Although sales involving small quantities are not inherently 
commercially unreasonable, the quantity, taken together with other 
aspects of a transaction, may support a conclusion that a transaction 
is not bona fide. For example, in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate From Romania: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 47232, 47234 (September 4, 1998) (Romanian 
Plate), the Department excluded the respondent's U.S. sale from its 
analysis based on the cumulative weight of numerous factors indicating 
that the sale involved atypical selling procedures, including the 
extremely small quantity, the extraordinarily high transportation costs 
incurred by the importer combined with other expenses borne by the 
importer, and the fact that the merchandise was subsequently resold at 
a significant loss. See generally Romanian Plate, 63 FR at 47233; see 
also Windmill Int'l Pte., Ltd. v. United States, 193 F. Supp.2d 1303, 
1313 (February 21, 2002). The Department takes its responsibility to 
review the bona fides of new shipper sales very seriously. Therefore, 
we examine a number of factors, all of which may speak to the 
commercial realities surrounding the sale of subject merchandise.
    As discussed in detail in the Department's Rescission Memo, TTPC's 
new shipper sales to the United States fell outside of its normal 
business practice. See Rescission Memo at 4. In addition, the value of 
the sales as well as the practices surrounding the sales were atypical 
of normal, commercial transactions in the industry. Id. at pages 3-6. 
Taken as a whole, these facts lead the Department to conclude that the 
sales were not commercially reasonable or bona fide. As a result, this 
new shipper review should be rescinded.

Notification

    The Department will notify the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection that bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security 
requirements for shipments by TTPC of glycine from the PRC entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or 
after the publication of this rescission notice in the Federal 
Register, and that a cash deposit of 155.89 percent ad valorem should 
be collected for any entries exported by TTPC.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO material 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 
sanctions.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: August 8, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-21057 Filed 8-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S