[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-8491] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: April 8, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-824] Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances; Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1994. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Easton or Steve Alley, Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482- 1777 or (202) 482-5288, respectively. PRELIMINARY CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINATION: The Department of Commerce (DOC) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value in this investigation on December 8, 1993 (58 FR 64549). On March 1, 1994, petitioner in this investigation alleged that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of silicon carbide from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Since this allegation regarding critical circumstances was filed later than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, 19 CFR 353.16(b)(2)(ii) requires that we issue our preliminary critical circumstances determination not later than 30 days after the allegation was filed. Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''), provides that the Department will determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist if: (A) (i) There is a history of dumping in the United States or elsewhere of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of the investigation, or (ii) The person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation at less than its fair value, and (B) There have been massive imports of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively short period. History of Dumping In this investigation, the first criterion of analysis is addressed in Petitioner's March 1, 1994 submission. Petitioner established that there is a history of dumping of silicon carbide by the PRC by providing documentation concerning both a 1986 finding of dumping and a 1993 review of antidumping measures in the European Community. (See Exhibits 1-3 of petitioner's March 1, 1994 submission). Inasmuch as we have determined that there is a history of dumping of the subject merchandise, the Department does not need to determine whether the importers of this merchandise knew, or should have known, that the merchandise was being sold at less than fair value. Massive Imports Having preliminarily found that there is a history of dumping of the subject merchandise, we need to consider whether the imports of the merchandise have been massive. Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.16(f) and 353.16(g), the Department considers the following when determining whether imports have been massive over a relatively short period of time: (1) Volume and value of the imports; (2) Seasonal trends (if applicable); and (3) The share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. When examining volume and value data, the Department typically compares the export volume for equal periods immediately preceding and following the filing of the petition (the ``pre-filing period'' and the ``post-filing period''). Under 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), unless the imports in the comparison period have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during the base period, the imports will not be considered to be ``massive.'' To determine whether there have been massive imports over a relatively short period of time, the Department examines shipment information submitted by the respondent or import statistics, when respondent-specific shipment information is not available. On March 4, 1994, the Department sent letters to respondents requesting information regarding shipments of silicon carbide for the period of January 1991 to December 1993. All six participating respondents in this investigation submitted the requested shipment information. Our analysis is based on the company-specific information supplied by respondents. Because the timing of the allegation (after the completion of verification and close to the scheduled date for the final determination) precluded on-site verification of this information, the Department also referred to U.S. Customs IM-115 entry data to corroborate respondents' reported shipment information, pursuant to section 771(18)(E) of the Act. To determine whether there have been massive imports of silicon carbide, we compared export volumes for the five months subsequent to the filing of the petition (July through November 1993) to the five months prior to the filing of the petition (February through June 1993). This period of review was selected on the basis of the Department's practice of using the longest period for which information is available up until the effective date of the preliminary determination (which in this investigation was December 8, 1993). We were unable to consider changes in import penetration, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.16(f)(1)(iii), because the available data did not permit an analysis of the post-filing period. Nevertheless, based on respondents' shipment information and U.S. Customs entry data, we find that imports of silicon carbide from the PRC have been massive over a relatively short period for two of the respondents in this investigation--Shaanxi Minmetals (Shaanxi) and Xiamen Abrasives Company (Xiamen). Our finding is based on determining that imports from Shaanxi and Xiamen increased more than 15% during the five month post-filing period. The other four respondents in this investigation--Seventh Grinding Wheel Factory Import and Export Corporation, Import/Export Trading Corporation of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Qinghai Metals and Minerals Import and Export Corporation, and Hainan Feitian Electrontech Company, Limited--were not responsible for massive imports. (For a summary of our calculations, see memo to the file of March 28, 1994). For the Chinese exporters that did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, we find that imports of silicon carbide from the PRC were massive, based on the best information otherwise available (BIA). In conclusion, given that (1) there has been a history of dumping, and (2) imports from certain respondents have been massive, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for two respondents in this investigation--Shaanxi and Xiamen. We also preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for all exporters who did not participate in this investigation. FINAL CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINATION: We will make a final determination concerning critical circumstances when we make our final determination in this investigation, i.e., by April 22, 1994. ITC Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination. Public Comment Since this preliminary critical circumstances determination is being made after the due date for case briefs in this investigation, we will accept written comments on this preliminary determination of critical circumstances until April 4, 1994; rebuttal comments must be submitted no later than April 5, 1994. This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act. Dated: March 31, 1994. Susan G. Esserman, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 94-8491 Filed 4-7-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P