[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73426-73428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29787]



[[Page 73426]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-836]


Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty 
Order

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) continues to 
determine that glycine processed by Salvi Chemical Industries Limited 
(Salvi) and AICO Laboratories India Ltd. (AICO) and exported to the 
United States from India is circumventing the antidumping duty order on 
glycine from the People's Republic of China (China), as provided in 
section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).\1\ With 
respect to Paras Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (Paras), the Department 
continues to find that Paras is not circumventing the Order because it 
is producing glycine from raw materials of Indian origin and exporting 
such merchandise to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine From the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 16116 (March 29, 1995) (Order).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 10, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell, Dena Crossland, or 
Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0408, (202) 482-3362, or (202) 482-3019, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 10, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the affirmative preliminary determination that glycine processed by 
Salvi and AICO and exported to the United States from India was 
circumventing the Order as provided in section 781(b) of the Act.\2\ In 
the same preliminary determination, the Department found that Paras was 
not circumventing the Order because it produced glycine from raw 
materials of Indian origin and exported such merchandise to the United 
States. Pursuant to section 781(e) of the Act, on April 3, 2012, the 
Department notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of 
its preliminary partial affirmative determination of circumvention, in 
accordance with section 781(e) of the Act, and informed the ITC of its 
ability to request consultations with the Department regarding the 
possible inclusion of the products in question within the Order 
pursuant to section 781(e)(2) of the Act. The Department received no 
request for consultations from the ITC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Partial Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the 
Antidumping Duty Order and Initiation of Scope Inquiry, 77 FR 21532 
(April 10, 2012) (Preliminary Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 30, 2012, GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and Chattem 
Chemicals, Inc., (domestic interested parties) filed comments on the 
Department's Preliminary Determination. On April 30, 2012, AICO filed 
comments which were accidently misfiled in Import Administration's 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service 
System (IA ACCESS), and which subsequently were filed correctly on May 
21, 2012. On May 1, 2012, Salvi submitted its final version of its 
comments. On May 10, 2012, the Department received rebuttal comments 
from Paras, the Domestic Interested Parties, and joint rebuttal 
comments from AICO and Salvi. We held individual meetings with counsel 
to all parties on June 7 and June 13, 2012, and memoranda to the file 
recording those meetings were placed on the record of the 
proceeding.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum to the File, dated June 12, 2012, with 
respect to the meeting with domestic interested parties on June 7, 
2012, and the two Memoranda to the File, dated June 25, 2012, with 
respect to the two meetings with respondents on June 13, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 31, 2012, the Department exercised its discretion to 
toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from October 29 through October 30, 2012.\4\ Thus, the 
deadline for this inquiry was extended by two days. Accordingly, the 
deadline for the final results of this anti-circumvention inquiry was 
extended from November 30, 2012, to December 2, 2012. Because December 
2, 2012, falls on a weekend, the deadline for the final determination 
of this inquiry is December 3, 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to the Record from Paul Piquado, As for 
Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative 
Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent 
Hurricane,'' dated October 31, 2012.
    \5\ See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business 
Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to 
the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is glycine, which is a free-
flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced 
at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, 
a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and 
a metal complexing agent. This order covers glycine of all purity 
levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).\6\ 
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is 
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In a separate scope ruling, the Department determined that 
D(-) Phenylglycine Ethyl Dane Salt is outside the scope of the 
order. See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anticircumvention Inquiries, 
62 FR 62288 (November 21, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

    The product covered by this inquiry is glycine, as described in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, which is exported from India, 
but processed using Chinese-origin inputs (e.g., crude or technical-
grade glycine). This inquiry covers glycine produced by AICO, Paras, 
and Salvi. Salvi and Paras have stated on the record that they also 
self-produce glycine from Indian-origin inputs. The focus of this 
proceeding is to determine whether glycine is: (1) Manufactured in 
China; (2) processed by AICO, Paras, or Salvi in India; and (3) then 
exported to the United States as Indian-origin glycine constitutes 
circumvention of the Order under section 781(b) of the Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in 
this proceeding are addressed in the Memorandum from Gary Taverman, 
Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Determination of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Glycine from the People's Republic of China,'' dated December 
3, 2012 (Decision Memorandum) and hereby adopted by this notice. A list 
of the issues which the parties raised and to which the Department 
responds in the Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as 
Appendix I. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file 
electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to IA ACCESS is available to 
registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central

[[Page 73427]]

Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In 
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed 
Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Determination of Circumvention

    For the final determination, we continue to rely on the statutory 
criteria that we considered in making our Preliminary Determination.\7\ 
Based on our review of the record evidence and our analysis of the 
comments received, the Department continues to find that glycine 
exported from India, but processed using Chinese-origin inputs (e.g., 
crude or technical-grade glycine) by Salvi and AICO, is circumventing 
the antidumping duty order on glycine from China. The Department also 
continues to find Paras is not circumventing the antidumping duty order 
on glycine from the PRC because its exports of glycine to the United 
States were produced from India-origin inputs. For a complete 
discussion of the Department's analysis, see the accompanying Decision 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 21533-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Ruling

    The Department self-initiated a scope ruling in its Preliminary 
Determination.\8\ On September 13, 2012, the Department issued its 
preliminary scope ruling.\9\ The Department preliminarily determined 
that the processing of Chinese-origin technical grade or crude glycine, 
including but not limited to AAA-97TE, ACAA- 97TE,\10\ sodium glycinate 
and glycine slurry, is not substantially transformed into glycine of 
Indian origin and therefore such glycine remains within the scope of 
the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 21535.
    \9\ See Memorandum from David Cordell and Dena Crossland, 
International Trade Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, through 
Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, and 
Richard Weible, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, to Gary 
Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, ``Preliminary Scope Ruling concerning the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Glycine from the People's Republic of China (PRC),'' 
dated September 13, 2012 (Preliminary Scope Ruling).
    \10\ The Department notes that in the recommendation section of 
its Preliminary Scope Ruling and in the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) instructions at paragraph 6, the Department 
inadvertently referred to this product as ACA-97TE. The correct 
reference to the product is ACAA-97TE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also adopted a certification requirement to ensure 
that merchandise meeting this scope clarification is properly 
identified as subject merchandise, and applied this certification to 
all imports of glycine from India, with the exception of AICO and 
Salvi, who were subject to the Preliminary Determination, in which 
glycine produced by AICO and Salvi was determined to be circumventing 
the Order, and therefore subject to the rates established for glycine 
from China. In the Final Scope Ruling, which is being issued 
concurrently with this final determination, we are affirming the 
decisions and actions outlined in the Preliminary Scope Ruling, which 
are addressed in the Final Scope Ruling.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    The Department determines, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act, 
that glycine processed by AICO and Salvi from Chinese-produced glycine 
covered under the narrative description of the scope of the Order 
constitutes subject merchandise and is therefore subject to cash 
deposit requirements. Accordingly, we are instructing CBP to continue 
to suspend liquidation and collect cash deposits on all unliquidated 
entries of glycine processed by AICO and Salvi and exported to the 
United States from India at the rate applicable to the relevant PRC-
manufacturer, including the current PRC-wide entity if applicable.\11\ 
In requiring that CBP collect cash deposits on AICO's or Salvi's 
exports of glycine found to be in circumvention of the antidumping 
order as appropriate, the Department is making no final determination 
of AICO's or Salvi's dumping duty liability at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's 
Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention 
of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 47551 (August 5, 2011), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5. For 
a full discussion of this issue, see the accompanying Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department will continue to direct CBP to suspend 
liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties at the 
applicable rate on unliquidated entries of glycine produced and/or 
exported by AICO or Salvi that were entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after October 22, 2010, the date of 
initiation of the anti-circumvention inquiry.
    The action we are taking with respect to the merchandise at issue 
does not constitute a determination of the final liability for payment 
of antidumping duties. The United States operates a retrospective 
system of duty assessment and under such a system the cash deposit is 
only an estimate. Final duties are not assessed at the time the subject 
merchandise is imported into the United States. Should AICO or Salvi 
wish to seek a determination of whether it is dumping, it can request a 
review of its exports so that the Department may determine the final 
dumping liability through the standard administrative process. As such, 
the Department is requiring that CBP collect cash deposits on AICO's or 
Salvi's exports of glycine found to be in circumvention of an 
antidumping order as appropriate, but is making no final determination 
of dumping herein. The Department also notes that AICO or Salvi may 
also request a changed circumstance review if they can show their 
exports of glycine to the United States are not processed from PRC-
origin glycine.

Certifications Requirements

    The Department has broadened its analysis and determined in its 
Final Scope Ruling that Chinese-origin glycine processed in India and 
exported to the United States is subject merchandise. In its Final 
Scope Ruling, the Department has instituted a country-wide 
certification mechanism, for all imports of glycine from India, to 
ensure that subject merchandise does not enter the United States as 
glycine from India. See Preliminary Scope Ruling and Final Scope Ruling 
for more details.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials 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.
    This final affirmative circumvention determination is published in 
accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225

     Dated: December 3, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Discussion of the Issues

Issue 1: Whether to Include AICO's and Salvi's Affiliates in Any 
Anti-Circumvention Remedy
Issue 2: Whether to Apply a Country-Wide Remedy
Issue 3: Whether to Require Importer and/or

[[Page 73428]]

Exporter Certification(s)
Issue 4: Whether Salvi's Value Added was Calculated Incorrectly
Issue 5: Whether the Production in India is Minor or Insignificant
Issue 6: Whether AICO Acted to the Best of its Ability in this Anti-
Circumvention Inquiry

[FR Doc. 2012-29787 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P