[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38984-38986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15488]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-925)


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) determines that sodium 
nitrite from the People's Republic of China (PRC) is being, or is 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) 
as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). We made no changes to the preliminary dumping margin in this 
investigation. The final dumping margin for this investigation is 
listed in the ``Final Determination Margin'' section below. The period 
covered by this investigation is April 1, 2007, through September 30, 
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Rebecca Pandolph, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4 Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4162 and (202) 482-3627, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 23, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the notice of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the 
antidumping duty investigation of sodium nitrite from the PRC. See 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 21906 (April 
23, 2008) (Preliminary Determination).
    With respect to the Department's invitation to comment on the 
Preliminary Determination, on May 23, 2008, General Chemical LLC (the 
petitioner) submitted a case brief. No other party submitted case or 
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding.

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is sodium nitrite in 
any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered 
by this investigation may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. 
Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous 
acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and 
filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it 
is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

[[Page 38985]]

The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) has 
assigned the name ``sodium nitrite'' to sodium nitrite. The CAS 
registry number is 7632-00-0.
    While the HTSUS subheading, CAS registry number, and CAS name are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    In its May 23, 2008, case brief, the petitioner argues that the 
Department should base its final determination, like the Preliminary 
Determination, on adverse facts available (AFA) because the two 
mandatory respondents, Qingdao Hengyuan Chemical Co., Ltd. (Qingdao) 
and Hualong Ammonium Nitrate Company Ltd. (Hualong), did not submit 
responses to the Department's questionnaire. In addition, the 
petitioner explains that it does not object to the preliminary AFA rate 
used by the Department (which is the highest margin alleged in the 
petition, as adjusted by the Department at initiation) because it 
believes the rate is consistent with both the dumping margins alleged 
in the petition and the dumping margins used for purposes of initiating 
the investigation. The petitioner notes that the Department's practice 
is to base an AFA rate on the highest margin in a proceeding and here 
the highest margin is the most probative evidence of current margins 
because, if it were not, evidence showing the margins to be less would 
have been provided.\1\ See the May 23, 2008, submission, Sodium Nitrite 
from China: Case Brief of General Chemical LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 
1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner also notes that no party filed separate rate 
information in this investigation. Given the PRC's status as a non-
market economy (NME) country, and the lack of information on the record 
rebutting the Department's presumption that all companies in the PRC 
are subject to government control, the petitioner argues that the rate 
applied to the PRC-wide entity cannot be lower than the rate applied to 
Qingdao and Hualong. See the May 23, 2008, submission, Sodium Nitrite 
from China: Case Brief of General Chemical LLC.
    We agree that the dumping margin in this case should be based on 
total AFA because the two mandatory respondents, Qingdao and Hualong, 
failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Moreover, by not 
responding to the Department's questionnaire, Qingdao and Hualong 
failed to establish their entitlement to separate rates, and thus they 
are part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, the AFA rate will be 
applied to the PRC-wide entity. See ``The PRC-Wide Rate'' section of 
this notice below for a full discussion of this topic.

No Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, the Department has 
made no changes to its Preliminary Determination.

Separate Rates

    No party filed separate rates information in this investigation. 
Therefore, as was the case in the Preliminary Determination, we have 
considered all PRC exporters of subject merchandise to be part of the 
PRC-wide entity.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the Department, fails to provide 
information by the deadline or in the form or manner requested, or 
significantly impedes a proceeding, the Department shall use, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination. Furthermore, in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act permits the 
Department to use inferences that are adverse to a party if it finds 
that the party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Because, as noted 
above, Qingdao and Hualong are part of the PRC-wide entity, and they 
withheld information that is required by the Department to calculate 
dumping margins, the Department continues to conclude that it is 
appropriate to base the PRC-wide entity's dumping margin on facts 
available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 782(d) of the Act is not applicable here because 
Qingdao and Hualong failed to provide any response to the 
Department's request for information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, because Qingdao and Hualong did not respond to our 
request for information, we continue to find that the PRC-wide entity 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request 
for information. Therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 
Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Japan, 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 
12, 2000) (applying total adverse facts available because the 
respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire). For the 
reasons noted in the Preliminary Determination, we continue to find 
that the highest dumping margin from the petition, 190.74 percent, as 
revised by the Department, is the appropriate AFA rate in this case. 
See Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 21907-21908. As explained in 
the Preliminary Determination, we corroborated this rate pursuant to 
section 776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 
21908.
    Since we begin with the presumption that all companies within an 
NME country are subject to government control, and no company submitted 
information to rebut that presumption, we are applying a single 
antidumping duty rate, the PRC-wide rate, to all exporters of subject 
merchandise from the PRC. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo from the People's 
Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000) (applying the PRC-wide 
rate to all exporters of subject merchandise in the PRC based on the 
presumption that the export activities of the companies that failed to 
respond to the Department's questionnaire were controlled by the PRC 
government). Thus, the PRC-wide rate will apply to all entries of 
subject merchandise.

Final Determination Margin

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin 
exists for the period April 1, 2007, through September 30, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate.......................................              190.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are 
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to 
suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that is 
entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 
23, 2008, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in 
the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to continue to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margin shown above. The suspension 
of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

[[Page 38986]]

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination of 
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance 
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the 
domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or 
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the 
likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within 
45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that 
material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing 
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of 
return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-15488 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S