[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65278-65283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25804]
[[Page 65278]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-992, A-560-826]
Monosodium Glutamate From the People's Republic of China, and the
Republic of Indonesia: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: October 31, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun Jack Zhao (the People's Republic
of China (PRC)) or Gene Calvert (the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia))
at (202) 482-1396 or (202) 482-3586, respectively, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VII, 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 antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of
monosodium glutamate (MSG) from the PRC and Indonesia 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 Antidumping 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 AD/CVD Petitions, September 24, 2013
(AD/CVD Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of MSG from
Indonesia and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731
of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also,
consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the petitions are
accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner in
support of its allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed these petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested
party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also
finds that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with
respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioner is
requesting.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periods of Investigation
Because the petitions were filed on September 16, 2013, the period
of investigation (POI) for the PRC investigation is January 1, 2013,
through June 30, 2013. The POI for the Indonesia investigation is July
1, 2012, through June 30, 2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is MSG from Indonesia
and the PRC.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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,\7\ 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. In addition, all
comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance's electronic service system (IA
ACCESS).\8\ 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 PRC and Indonesia AD
investigations, as well as the concurrent PRC and Indonesia
countervailing duty (CVD) investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
\8\ 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.
Comments on the Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty
Questionnaires
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding
the appropriate physical characteristics of MSG to be reported in
response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will
be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject
merchandise in order to report accurately the relevant factors of
production and costs, as well as to develop appropriate product-
comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments they
feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical
characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which
characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may
be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to
describe MSG, it may be that only a select few product characteristics
take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In
addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the
physical characteristics should be used in matching products.
Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical
characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments
on product characteristics by November 12, 2013. Rebuttal comments must
be received by November 18, 2013. All comments and submissions to the
Department must be
[[Page 65279]]
filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as referenced above.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety 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.
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.\9\ Therefore, all
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been tolled by 16
days. The revised deadline for the initiation of these investigations
is October 23, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(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 732(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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Monosodium Glutamate from Indonesia (Indonesia AD Initiation
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 Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Monosodium Glutamate from the
People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation 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
732(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.\12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-1.B.
\13\ 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.\14\ 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).\15\
Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory
criteria for industry support under section 732(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.\16\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met
the statutory criteria for industry support under section
732(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 expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions.\17\
Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were filed on
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Indonesia AD Checklist and PRC AD Checklist, at
Attachment II.
\15\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Indonesia AD
Checklist and PRC AD Checklist, at Attachment II.
\16\ See Indonesia AD Checklist and PRC AD Checklist, at
Attachment II.
\17\ 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 AD investigations that it is
requesting the Department initiate.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65280]]
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise
sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioner alleges
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\19\ 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.\20\ 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 22.
\20\ 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.
\21\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department has based its decision to
initiate investigations of imports of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC.
The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S.
price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Indonesia AD
Initiation Checklist and the PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
Export Price
Indonesia
For Indonesia, Petitioner calculated an EP based on monthly AUVs
for the POI for U.S. imports of MSG for consumption from Indonesia
under HTSUS subheading 2922.42.1000 (the subheading relevant to MSG)
using the ITC's Dataweb. Petitioner also calculated a POI weighted-
average AUV.\22\ From these AUVs, Petitioner deducted an amount for
foreign brokerage and handling charges in Indonesia, and foreign inland
freight from the manufacturing plant to the port of exportation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Volume IV of the Petitions at 2 and Exhibits IV-1
through IV-3. We note that using a POI weighted-average AUV is
consistent with our past practice with respect to using AUV data as
the basis for U.S. price. Furthermore, using the POI weighted-
average AUV in the margin calculation results in a positive margin.
Therefore, we have relied on the POI-weighted average AUV as the
basis for EP based on AUVs.
\23\ Id. at 2-3 and Exhibits IV-4 through IV-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC
Petitioner calculated an export price (EP) based on monthly average
unit values (AUVs) for the POI for U.S. imports of MSG for consumption
from the PRC under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) subheading 2922.42.1000 (the subheading relevant to MSG) using
the ITC's Dataweb. Petitioner also calculated a POI weighted-average
AUV. In addition, using detailed information regarding the month,
district of unlading, and district of entry, Petitioner was able to
estimate certain dumping margins for individual transactions between a
Chinese exporter of MSG and a U.S. importer of MSG by matching ship
manifest data to the official import statistics. Petitioner used
official import statistics to calculate the U.S. price for two such
individual transactions.\24\ Petitioner deducted an amount for foreign
brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, and foreign inland freight
from the manufacturing plant to the port of exportation from the AUVs
and the import prices for the individual import transactions.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 4-5 and Exhibits II-4
through II-7.
\25\ Id. at 5-6 and Exhibits II-8 through II-18. We note that
using a POI weighted-average AUV is consistent with our past
practice with respect to using AUV data as the basis for U.S. price.
Furthermore, using the POI weighted-average AUV in the margin
calculation results in a positive margin. Therefore, we have relied
on the POI-weighted average AUV as the basis for EP based on AUVs.
We have also relied on the individual transaction prices calculated
by Petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Indonesia
Petitioner based NV on constructed value (CV), as neither a home
market nor a third-country price was reasonably available. Pursuant to
section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing
(COM); SG&A expenses; financial expenses; packing expenses; and profit.
Petitioner owns and operates two MSG production facilities in
Indonesia, PT Ajinomoto Indonesia (AJIND) and PT Ajinex International
(AJINEX) which, according to Petitioner, are similar to Indonesian MSG
producer CJ Indonesia's production facilities in terms of production
capacity, production equipment, and production inputs. Petitioner
calculated COM and packing expenses based on the actual cost data of
the Petitioner's MSG producers in Indonesia.
To determine SG&A and profit rates, Petitioner relied on the
average rates calculated based on the financial statements for AJIND
for the year ended March 31, 2013 and the financial statements for
AJINEX for the year ended March 31, 2012, because the March 31, 2013
financial statements for AJINEX were not available to Petitioner at the
time of the filing of the petition.
To calculate the financial expense rate, Petitioner relied on the
financial statements of CJ Indonesia's parent company, CJ Cheil Jedang
Corporation, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC
Petitioner claims that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME)
country, and that this designation remains in effect as of the date of
this petition.\27\ The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not
been revoked by the Department and, therefore, in accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, remains in effect for purposes of the
initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product
for the investigation is appropriately based on factors of production
valued in a surrogate market-economy country in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties,
including the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant
information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and granting
of separate rates to individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner contends that Indonesia is the appropriate surrogate
country for the PRC because: (1) It is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC, (2) it is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise relative to the MSG that is the
subject of the petition, and (3) the data available from Indonesia for
valuing factors of production are available and reliable.\28\ Based on
the information provided by Petitioner, we conclude that it is
appropriate to use Indonesia as a surrogate country for initiation
purposes.\29\ After initiation of this investigation, interested
parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding
surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i),
will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available
information to value factors of production (FOPs) within 40 days
[[Page 65281]]
before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id. at 2-4 and Exhibits II-2 and II-3.
\29\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
\30\ See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i). Note that this is the revised
regulation published on April 1, 2013. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title19-vol3/html/CFR-2013-title19-vol3.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner calculated NV using the Department's NME methodology as
required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. In
calculating NV, Petitioner based the quantity of each of the inputs
used to manufacture the subject merchandise on its own consumption
experience, which, Petitioner contends is, to the best of its
knowledge, similar to the consumption of PRC producers.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Volume II of the Petition at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner valued the factors of production using reasonably
available, public surrogate country data, specifically, Indonesian
import data from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period December
2012--May 2013, the most recent six-month period for which data were
available.\32\ Petitioners excluded all import values from countries
previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available,
non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously
determined by the Department to be NME countries. In addition, in
accordance with the Department's practice, the average import values
exclude imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified
country. In addition, Petitioner made currency conversions, where
applicable, based on the POI-average Indonesian Rupiah/U.S. dollar
exchange rates.\33\ The Department determines that the surrogate values
used by Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, are acceptable
for purposes of initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., Volume II of the Petition at 8 and at Exhibit
II-23.
\33\ Id. at Exhibit II-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner valued direct material costs using Indonesia import data
from the GTA.\34\ Petitioner applied certain conversion factors to
align the units of measure with its own factors of production.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id., at 8 and at Exhibit II-23.
\35\ Id., at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner calculated the labor expense rate using 2010 data for
Indonesia from Chapter 5B of the International Labor Organization's
(ILO's) wage data because wage data from Chapter 6 was not available
for Indonesia.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id., at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner based the factor values for electricity and steam on the
industry rates set forth in the 2012 Handbook of Energy and Economic
Statistics of Indonesia, published by the Indonesian Ministry of Energy
and Mineral Resources.\37\ Petitioner calculated the factor value for
water based on Indonesian water rates.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id.
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner calculated financial ratios (i.e., factory overhead
expenses, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and
profit) based on the most recent audited financial statements of PT
Budi Acid Jaya, an Indonesian manufacturer of citric acid (a product
that Petitioner claims is comparable to MSG), and majority owner of PT
Ve Wong Indonesia, an Indonesian producer of MSG.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id., at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For packing inputs, Petitioner claims that the majority of MSG
imported to the United States from the PRC is packaged in 50-pound
bags. Petitioner obtained Indonesian import data from the GTA to derive
the surrogate values for these bags.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id., at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Based on comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4)
of the Act, Petitioner calculated the estimated dumping margins, based
on POI weighted-average AUVs, to be 72.59 percent with respect to
imports of MSG from the PRC, and 55.25 percent with respect to imports
of MSG from Indonesia. For the individual transactions between a PRC
exporter and a U.S. importer, Petitioner calculated margins between
103.76 and 204.69 percent.
Initiation of AD Investigations
Based on our examination of the petitions on MSG from Indonesia and
the PRC, the Department finds that the petitions meet the requirements
of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD
investigations to determine whether imports of MSG from Indonesia and
the PRC are being, or likely to be, sold in the United States at less
than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will issue our preliminary
determinations no later than 140 days after the publication date of
this initiation notice.
Respondent Selection
Indonesia
The Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POI (i.e.,
July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013, for Indonesia) under the following
HTSUS 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 publication of the initiation of these investigations.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection within five calendar days of the publication of
the initiation of these investigations. 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.
PRC
With respect to the PRC, in accordance with our standard practice
for respondent selection for NME countries, we intend to issue quantity
and value questionnaires to each potential respondent, and will base
respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the
Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with
the filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site
(http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp). Exporters and producers of
MSG from the PRC that do not receive quantity and value questionnaires
via mail may still submit a quantity and value response, and can obtain
a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The quantity and
value questionnaire must be submitted by all PRC exporters/producers by
no later than November 12, 2013. All quantity and value questionnaires
must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation,
exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application.\41\
The specific requirements
[[Page 65282]]
for submitting the separate rate application in the PRC investigation
are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be
available on the Department's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp on the date of publication of this initiation
notice in the Federal Register. The separate rate application will be
due 60 days after the publication of this initiation notice. For
exporters and producers who submit a separate rate status application
and have been selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and
producers will no longer be eligible for consideration for separate
rate status unless they respond to all parts of the Department's AD
questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that
PRC respondents submit a response to the separate rate application by
the deadline referenced above in order to receive consideration for
separate rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate
Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin), available on the Department's
Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Combination Rates
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin
states:
{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation.\42\
\42\ See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin at 6
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the petitions have been
provided to the Governments of Indonesia and the PRC 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 Governments of Indonesia and the PRC, consistent with
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(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.\43\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result
in the termination of the investigation with respect to that country;
otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See section 733(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), 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.\44\
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.\45\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\45\ 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)).
[[Page 65283]]
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.
Appendix 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. 2013-25804 Filed 10-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P