[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70778-70780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E3-00597]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-839]
Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation:
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey at (202) 482-3964, Office
of AD/CVD Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Initiation of Investigation
The Petition
On November 21, 2003, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the
Department) received a petition filed in proper form by Sun Chemical
Corporation and Nation Ford Chemical Company (collectively, the
petitioners). The Department received supplemental information to the
petition from the petitioners on December 5, 2003.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, petitioners allege
that producers or exporters of carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP-23) in
India receive countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section
701 of the Act, and that imports from India are materially injuring, or
are threatening material injury, to an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing duty
investigation that they are requesting the Department to initiate. See
infra, ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition.''
Period of Investigation
The anticipated period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2002
through December 31, 2002.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbazole violet
23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-
30-1, with the chemical name of diindolo [3,2-b:3',2'-
m]triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5, 15 5,15-diethy-5,15-dihydro-, and
molecular formula of
C[bdi3][bdi4]H[bdi2][bdi2]Cl[bdi2]N[bdi4]O[bdi2].\1\ The subject
merchandise includes the crude pigment in any form (e.g., dry powder,
paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in the form of presscake and dry
color. Pigment dispersions in any form (e.g. pigments dispersed in
oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) are not included within the
scope of the investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that the bracketed section of the product
description, [3,2-b:3',2'-m], is not business proprietary
information. In this case, the brackets are simply part of the
chemical nomenclature. See December 4, 2003, amendment to petition
(supplemental petition) at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under
subheading 3204.17.9040 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
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the
petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 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 determination.
Consultations
In accordance with Article 13.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures and section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, we held consultations with the Government of India (``GOI'')
regarding this petition on December 9, 2003. See Memorandum to the File
from Sean Carey: Consultations with the Government of India Regarding
the Countervailing Duty Petition on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23, dated
December 10, 2003.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(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 satisfies 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
[[Page 70779]]
domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover,
section 702(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 U.S. 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 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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See USEC, Inc., v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1,8 (CIT
2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 1988). See also 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.
In this case, the petition covers a single class or kind of
merchandise, CVP-23, as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation''
section, above. The petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic
like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Further,
based on our analysis of the information presented to the Department by
the petitioners, we have determined that there is a single domestic
like product which is consistent with the definition of the ``Scope of
the Investigation'' section above and have analyzed industry support in
terms of this domestic like product.
The Department has determined that the petitioners have established
industry support representing over 50 percent of total production of
the domestic like product, requiring no further action by the
Department pursuant to section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In addition,
the Department received no opposition to the petitions from domestic
producers of the like product. Therefore, the domestic producers or
workers who support the petitions account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements
of section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, the
domestic producers or workers who support the petitions 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 petitions. Thus, the requirements of section
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met.
Accordingly, we determine that the petition is filed on behalf of
the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the
Act. See Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 (CVP-23) in the Forms of Crude Pigment,
Presscake and Dry Color Pigment from India (December 11, 2003)
(Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, on file in the Central Records
Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce.
Injury Test
Because India is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) applies to this
investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of
the subject merchandise from India are materially injuring, or are
threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.
Allegations of Subsidies
Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a
petition, on behalf of an industry, that; (1) alleges the elements
necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a), and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to petitioners
supporting the allegations.
We are initiating an investigation of the following programs
alleged in the petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to
manufacturers, producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in
India (a full description of each program is provided in the CVD
Initiation Checklist):
1. The Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)/ Post-Export Credits
2. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
3. Export Processing Zones (EPZ)/ Export-Oriented Units (EOU)
Programs
4. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (Sections 10A, 10B, and 80 HHC)
5. Pre-Shipment Export Financing
6. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes
7. Market Development Assistance (MDA)
8. Special Imprest Licenses
9. Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) Scheme
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened
with material injury, by reason of subsidized imports from India of the
subject merchandise.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
evident in the declining trends in net operating profits, net sales
volumes, domestic prices, revenue, profit-to-sales ratios, production
employment, capacity utilization, and domestic market share. The
allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence
including U.S. import data, lost sales, and pricing information.
The Department has assessed the allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury and causation and determined that these
allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation. See Initiation Checklist.
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation
Based on our examination of the petition on CVP-23, and
petitioners' responses to our requests for supplemental information
clarifying the petition, we have found that the petition meets the
requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating a countervailing duty
investigation to determine whether
[[Page 70780]]
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of CVP-23 from India receive
countervailable subsidies. Unless the deadline is extended, we will
make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date
of this initiation.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 702(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives
of the government of India. 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
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will determine no later than January 5, 2004, whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports of CVP-23 from India are
materially injuring, or threatening 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: December 11, 2003.
James Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E3-00597 Filed 12-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S