[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5636-5638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2675]
[[Page 5636]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-001]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Sorbitol From France
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Sorbitol
from France.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on
sorbitol from France (63 FR 52683) pursuant to section 751(c) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of a notice
of intent to participate and a complete substantive response filed on
behalf of the domestic industry, and inadequate response (in this case
no response) from respondent interested parties, the Department
determined to conduct an expedited review. As a result of this review,
the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping order would be
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels
indicated in the Final Results of Review section to this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G.
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. &
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 1999.
Statute and Regulations: This review was conducted pursuant to
sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act. The Department's procedures for the
conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting
Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''). Guidance
on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's
conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy
Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'')
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin,
63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').
Scope: The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline
sorbitol, a polyol produced by the hydrogenation of sugars (glucose),
used in the production of sugarless gum, candy, groceries, and
pharmaceuticals, currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (``HTS'') item number 2905.44.00. The HTS item number is
provided for convenience and for Customs purposes. The written
description remain dispositive.
This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of sorbitol from
France.
Background: On October 1, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset
review of the antidumping order on sorbitol from France (63 FR 52683)
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. On October 6, 1998, we received
a Notice of Intent to Participate from SPI Polyols, Inc. (``SPI''). On
October 16, 1998, we received a Notice of Intent to Participate from
Archer Daniels Midland Company (``ADM'') and Roquette America (``RA'').
Each of these notices were received within the deadline specified in
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. ADM and SPI claimed
interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as domestic
producers of sorbitol. RA claimed interested party status as a domestic
producer and as an importer of the subject merchandise. The Department
received substantive responses on behalf of each of the three parties
within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under
section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a substantive response
from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and our regulations (19 C.F.R.
Sec. 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), we determined to conduct an expedited
review.
Determination: In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act,
the Department conducted this review to determine whether revocation of
the antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in
making this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-
average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent
reviews and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the
period before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping
order. Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department shall
provide to the International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the
magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order is
revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed below.
In addition, parties' comments with respect to the continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are addressed
within the respective sections below.
Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping: Drawing on the guidance
provided in the legislative history accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically the Statement of Administrative
Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House
Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1 (1994), and the Senate Report, S.
Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the Department issued its Sunset Policy
Bulletin providing guidance on methodological and analytical issues,
including the basis for likelihood determinations. The Department
clarified that determinations of likelihood will be made on an order-
wide basis (see section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
Additionally, the Department normally will determine that revocation of
an antidumping order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping where (a) dumping continued at any level above de minimis after
the issuance of the order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise
ceased after the issuance of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated
after the issuance of the order and import volumes for the subject
merchandise declined significantly (see section II.A.3. of the Sunset
Policy Bulletin).
The Department's antidumping duty order on sorbitol from France was
published in the Federal Register (47 FR 15391) on April 9, 1982. Since
that time the Department has conducted several administrative
reviews.1 The antidumping duty order remains in effect for
all imports of sorbitol from France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Sorbitol from France; Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 47 FR 6459 (February 12, 1982); Sorbitol from
France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 51
FR 42873 (November 26, 1986); Sorbitol from France; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 52 FR 20444 (June 1, 1987);
Sorbitol from France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 53 FR 21506 (June 8, 1988); Sorbitol from
France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55
FR 6668 (February 26, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, ADM argues that if the order on
crystalline sorbitol from France were revoked dumping will continue or
resume. ADM supports its conclusion by stating that after the issuance
of the order, dumping of sorbitol continued at levels above de minimis,
imports ceased and imports declined when they did not cease altogether.
With respect to margins above de minimis, ADM notes that in five of the
seven administrative reviews
[[Page 5637]]
conducted by the Department since 1982, margins exceeded de minimis,
and in one instance, the margin was more than four times that of the
original margin.2 With respect to the cessation of imports,
ADM states that Roquette Freres (``RF''), the only known exporter of
sorbitol to the U.S., previously acknowledged that its sorbitol exports
ceased for at least some period of time after the issuance of the
antidumping order. ADM argues that because RF requested revocation in
1988 based on no shipments for several years and no sales that
contained margins during the 1987-88 administrative review period, the
Department could conclude RF could not ship sorbitol to the U.S.
without dumping. Finally ADM argues that aggregated import statistics
for HTSUS item no. 2905.44.00, which includes crystalline sorbitol,
indicates that the total volume of imports declined, thus providing a
basis to infer that RF exported smaller volumes in certain periods
compared to the volumes that it shipped before the antidumping petition
was originally filed.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Substantive Response of ADM (November 2, 1998) at 4.
\3\ See Substantive Response of ADM (November 2, 1998) appendix
B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response SPI asserts that absent the order, RF
will resume large volume shipments from its French plant, producing
dumping margins in the range of 40 percent. SPI further asserts that in
recent years RF sold to U.S. customers exclusively from its U.S. plant.
However, RF has been bidding at extra-low prices to obtain additional
U.S. business. If successful, the additional business would
substantially exceed the capacity at RF's Illinois plant. Thus, SPI
asserts, it is obvious that RF plans to serve the additional business
from its French plant. Citing to the July 1998 marketing report,
``Sorbitol and Related Polyols--Worldwide Supply, Demand Business
Opportunities 1997/8-2005'' in which the price for sorbitol 100% is
given as $2.15/kg in the EU and $1.65/kg in the United States, SPI
estimates dumping margins of 40 percent.
RA, in its substantive response to the notice of initiation,
supported the preservation of the antidumping order. RA claimed that
the EU, particularly France, is currently significantly expanding
production capacity for crystalline sorbitol. Further, because market
demand within the EU is growing very slowly and cannot be expected to
consume the capacity increase and because exports are expected to
decline drastically because of the Asian crisis, the EU industry will
be seeking new export markets, with the United States being the likely
target.
As discussed in section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, ``[E]xistence of dumping
margins after the order, or cessation of imports after the order, is
highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping. If companies continue to dump with the discipline of an order
in place, it is reasonable to assume that dumping would continue if the
discipline were removed.'' As ADM noted, dumping margins above de
minimis were found to exist in five of the seven administrative reviews
conducted by the Department. Further, deposit rates above de minimis
continue in effect for exports of sorbitol from France. Therefore,
given that dumping margins above de minimis were found to exist and
continue in effect, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary,
the Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the
order were revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin: In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department stated that, consistent with the SAA and House Report, the
Department will provide to the Commission the company-specific margins
from the investigation for each company because that is the only
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the
discipline of an order. For companies not specifically investigated or
for companies that did not begin shipping until after the order was
issued, the Department normally will provide a margin based on the all
others rate from the investigation. See section II.B.1 of the Sunset
Policy Bulletin. Exceptions to this policy include the use of a more
recently calculated margin, where appropriate, and consideration of
duty absorption determinations. See sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset
Policy Bulletin.
In the Department's final determination of sales at less than fair
value of sorbitol from France, the Department established a 2.9 percent
dumping margin for RF. The Department has not issued an affirmative
duty absorption determination.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Sobitol from France; Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 47 FR 6549 (February 12, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADM states that in compliance with the SAA, the Department should
provide the original margin of 2.9 percent to the Commission because
2.9 percent reflects RF's behavior without the discipline of an order
in place.5 ADM further argues that, in this case, it is not
appropriate for the Department to select a more recently calculated
rate because the dumping margins calculated for the seven reviews
conducted by the Department have fluctuated significantly and do not
evince a pattern from which the Department could conclude that a more
recently calculated rate is likely to prevail in the absence of the
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA argues that a dumping margin of more than 20 percent is likely
to prevail if the order is revoked because the EU market, including
France, is a highly protected market with a tariff structure which
prohibits U.S. producers from exporting to the EU. In addition, RA
claims that the EU has a system of export refunds to compensate EU
producers for the high internal EU prices of grains which are the
feedstock for crystalline sorbitol outside the EU.
As discussed above, SPI alleges that the margin of dumping likely
to prevail if the order is revoked is 40 percent. SPI bases this
allegation on an EU price of $2.15/kg and a U.S. price of $1.65.
As noted in the Sunset Regulations and Sunset Policy Bulletin, only
under the most extraordinary circumstances will the Department rely on
a dumping margin other than those it calculated and published in its
prior determinations. Further, in antidumping sunset reviews, the
Department will consider other factors, such as prices and costs, only
where it determines that good cause to consider such other factors
exists (see section 351.218(e)(2) of the Sunset Regulations and section
II.C of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Although RA and SPI assert that
the dumping margin likely to prevail without the order could be 20
percent or 40 percent, they do not make any ``good cause'' arguments.
Neither RA nor SPI offered any rationale suggesting that their
estimated margins would not be more speculative and, therefore, less
probative than the calculated rate from the original investigation.
The Department finds no reason to deviate from our Policy Bulletin
in this review. Therefore, we determine that the original margin
calculated by the Department which reflects the behavior of exporters
without the discipline of the order, is probative of the behavior of
the French producers of sorbitol. The Department will report to the
Commission the company-specific and ``all others'' rate at the levels
indicated in the Final Results of the Review section of this notice.
[[Page 5638]]
Final Results of Review: As a result of this review, the Department
finds that revocation of the antidumping order would be likely to lead
to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roquette Freres.............................................. 2.90
All Others................................................... 2.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations.
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are published in
accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 28, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-2675 Filed 2-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P