[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65269-65272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25823]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-993, C-560-827]


Monosodium Glutamate From the People's Republic of China and the 
Republic of Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective: October 31, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun Jack Zhao (the People's Republic 
of China (the PRC)), or Gene Calvert (the Republic of Indonesia 
(Indonesia)) at (202) 482-1396, or (202) 482-3586, respectively, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On September 16, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of 
monosodium glutamate (MSG) from Indonesia and the PRC filed in proper 
form on behalf of Ajinomoto North America Inc. (Petitioner).\1\ 
Petitioner is a domestic producer of MSG. On September 20, 2013, the 
Department requested additional information and clarification of 
certain areas of the Petitions.\2\ Petitioner filed responses to these 
requests on September 24, 2013, and September 26, 2013.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Countervailing Duty Petitions on Monosodium Glutamate 
from the PRC and Indonesia, filed on September 16, 2013 (the 
Petitions).
    \2\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Monosodium Glutamate from the 
People's Republic of China and the Republic of Indonesia: 
Supplemental Questions, September 20, 2013.
    \3\ See Supplement to the PRC Petition, September 24, 2013 
(September 24 Supplement to the PRC Petition); and Supplement to the 
Indonesia Petition, September 24, 2013 (September 24 Supplement to 
the Indonesia Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that the Governments of Indonesia 
(the GOI) and the PRC (the GOC) are providing countervailable subsidies 
(within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports 
of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC, and that such imports are materially 
injuring, and threaten to further cause material injury to, the 
domestic industry producing MSG in the United States pursuant to 
section 701 of the Act. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the 
petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an 
interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that 
Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to 
the initiation of the investigations that Petitioner is requesting.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions,'' 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periods of Investigations

    The periods of these investigations (POI) is January 1, 2012, 
through December 31, 2012.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is MSG from Indonesia 
and the PRC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Appendix I of this notice for a full description of the 
scope of these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on the Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the product 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the regulations,\6\ we are setting aside a 
period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product 
coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit 
such comments by November 12, 2013, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, which is 20 
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. All comments and 
submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using 
Enforcement and Compliance's electronic service system (IA ACCESS).\7\ 
An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 
the time and date noted above. Documents excepted from the electronic 
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) 
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 
the deadline noted above. All comments must be filed on the records of 
both the Indonesia and PRC CVD investigations, as well as the 
concurrent Indonesia and PRC antidumping duty (AD) investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \7\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the 
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect 
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using IA ACCESS can be found 
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found 
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The period for scope comments is intended to provide the Department 
with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with 
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed

[[Page 65270]]

document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
applicable deadline. Documents excepted from the electronic submission 
requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with 
Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 
the deadline.

Tolling of Deadlines

    As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion 
to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.\8\ Therefore, all 
deadlines in these investigations have been tolled by 16 days. The 
revised deadline for the initiation of these investigations is October 
23, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant 
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ``Deadlines Affected by 
the Shutdown of the Federal Government,'' (October 18, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
invited representatives from the GOC and the GOI for consultations with 
respect to the Petitions.\9\ Consultations were held with the GOC on 
September 27, 2013. The Department and the GOI were unable to schedule 
consultations regarding the Indonesia petition.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Letter of Invitation Regarding the Countervailing Duty 
Petition on Monosodium Glutamate from the People's Republic of China 
(September 18, 2013); see also Letter of Invitation Regarding the 
Countervailing Duty Petition on Monosodium Glutamate from the 
Republic of Indonesia (September 18, 2013).
    \10\ See Ex-Parte Memoranda for the File from Mark Hoadley, 
``Consultations with Officials from the Government of the People's 
Republic of China regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition 
concerning Monosodium Glutamate,'' (October 21, 2013); see also 
Memorandum to the File from Gene Calvert, ``Consultations with the 
Government of Indonesia,'' (October 23, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    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 a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) 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 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: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole 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 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 (see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a 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 law.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Petitions).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer 
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that MSG constitutes a single 
domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of 
that domestic like product.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Monosodium Glutamate from Indonesia (Indonesia CVD 
Checklist) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the 
Petitions Covering Monosodium Glutamate from Indonesia and the 
People's Republic of China (Attachment II); and Countervailing Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Monosodium Glutamate from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC CVD Checklist), at Attachment II. 
These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file 
electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to documents filed via IA 
ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of 
the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own 
production of the domestic like product in 2012.\13\ Petitioner states 
that there are no other known producers of MSG in the United States; 
therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. 
industry.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-1.B.
    \14\ Id., at 3 and Exhibits I-1.A and I-1.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that 
Petitioner has established industry support.\15\ First, the Petitions 
established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for 
more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further 
action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\16\ 
Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory 
criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 
because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions 
account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic 
like product.\17\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because 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

[[Page 65271]]

expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.\18\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Indonesia CVD Checklist and PRC CVD Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
    \16\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Indonesia CVD 
Checklist and PRC CVD Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \17\ See Indonesia CVD Checklist and PRC CVD Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is 
requesting the Department initiate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because Indonesia and China are ``Subsidies Agreement Countries'' 
within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of 
the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must 
determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Indonesia and 
the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. 
industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry 
producing the domestic like product. Petitioner alleges that subject 
imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 
771(24)(A) of the Act. Petitioner also demonstrates that the volume of 
subject imports from Indonesia is 15 percent, which exceeds the 
negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(B) of the 
Act, which states that in countervailing duty proceedings, imports of 
subject merchandise from developing countries must exceed the 
negligibility threshold of four percent.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression 
or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and decline in financial 
performance.\21\ We have assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and 
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly 
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id., at 13-40 and Exhibits I-1, I-8, I-10 and I-12 through 
I-32; see also AD/CVD Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit SQR-1.
    \22\ See China CVD Initiation Checklist and Indonesia CVD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and 
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Petitions Covering 
Monosodium Glutamate from Indonesia and the People's Republic of 
China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of CVD Investigations

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a 
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on 
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an 
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner 
supporting the allegations. In the Petitions, Petitioner alleges that 
producers of MSG in Indonesia and the PRC benefitted from 
countervailable subsidies bestowed by their respective governments. The 
Department has examined the Petitions, and finds that they comply with 
the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating CVD 
investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or 
exporters of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC receive countervailable 
subsidies from their respective governments.

Indonesia

    Based on our examination of the Petitions, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 10 alleged 
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision on 
whether to initiate an investigation on each program, see the Indonesia 
CVD Initiation Checklist.

The PRC

    Based on our examination of the Petitions, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 49 alleged 
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision on 
whether to initiate an investigation on each program, see the PRC CVD 
Initiation Checklist.

Respondent Selection

    For these investigations, the Department, if necessary, intends to 
select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
data for U.S. imports during the POI (i.e., January 1, 2012, through 
December 31, 2012) under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States numbers: 2922.42.10.00, 2922.42.50.00, 2103.90.72.00, 
2103.90.74.00, 2103.90.78.00, 2103.90.80.00, and 2103.90.90.91. We 
intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order 
(APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within 
five days of the announcement of the initiation of these 
investigations. Interested parties may submit comments regarding the 
CBP data and respondent selection within five calendar days of release 
of this data. Comments on respondent selection must be filed 
electronically using IA ACCESS in accordance with the filing 
requirements, referenced above. We intend to make our decision 
regarding respondent selection within 20 days of the publication of 
this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the GOI and GOC via IA ACCESS. Because of the particularly 
large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petitions, the 
Department considers the service of the public versions of the 
Petitions to the foreign producers/exporters to be satisfied by the 
provision of the public versions of the Petitions to the GOI and GOC, 
consistent with 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 Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC are 
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. 
industry.\23\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result 
in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 
otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: 
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two 
regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: (1) The definition of 
factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and (2) the time limits 
for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final 
rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21),

[[Page 65272]]

which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to 
questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; 
(iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 
351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 
351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; 
and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 
The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, 
to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the 
information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to 
rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, 
to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the 
record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or 
correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather 
than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits 
based on the type of factual information being submitted. These 
modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or 
after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations. 
Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to 
submitting factual information for these investigations.

Extension of Time Limits

    On September 20, 2013, the Department published Extension of Time 
Limits, Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), which modified 
one regulation related to AD and CVD proceedings regarding the 
extension of time limits for submissions in such proceedings (19 CFR 
351.302(c)). These modifications are effective for all proceeding 
segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013, and thus are 
applicable to this investigation. Please review the final rule, 
available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm prior to requesting an extension.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\24\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials as well as their 
representatives in all AD or CVD investigations or proceedings 
initiated on or after August 16, 2013, including these 
investigations.\25\ The formats for the revised certifications are 
provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject 
factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the 
revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \25\ See Certifications of Factual Information To Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations 
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures 
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: October 23, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Attachment I

Scope of the Investigations

    The scope of these investigations covers monosodium glutamate 
(``MSG''), whether or not blended or in solution with other 
products. Specifically, MSG that has been blended or is in solution 
with other product(s) is included in this scope when the resulting 
mix contains 15% or more of MSG by dry weight. Products with which 
MSG may be blended include, but are not limited to, salts, sugars, 
starches, maltodextrins, and various seasonings. Further, MSG is 
included in these investigations regardless of physical form 
(including, but not limited to, substrates, solutions, dry powders 
of any particle size, or unfinished forms such as MSG slurry), end-
use application, or packaging.
    MSG has a molecular formula of 
C5H8NO4Na, a Chemical Abstract 
Service (``CAS'') registry number of 6106-04-3, and a Unique 
Ingredient Identifier (``UNII'') number of W81N5U6R6U.
    Merchandise covered by the scope of these investigations is 
currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') of 
the United States at subheading 2922.42.10.00. Merchandise subject 
to the investigations may also enter under HTS subheadings 
2922.42.50.00, 2103.90.72.00, 2103.90.74.00, 2103.90.78.00, 
2103.90.80.00, and 2103.90.90.91. The tariff classifications, CAS 
registry number, and UNII number are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is 
dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2013-25823 Filed 10-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P