[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57859-57862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28069]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-009]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Industrial
Nitrocellulose From France
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Industrial
Nitrocellulose from France.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order
on industrial nitrocellulose from France (64 FR 29261) 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 adequate substantive
response filed on behalf of a domestic interested party 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 duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of
Review section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun W. Cho or Melissa G. Skinner,
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(c) 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
[[Page 57860]]
Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (``Sunset
Regulations''), and 19 CFR Part 351 (1998) in general. 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 product covered by this order is industrial nitrocellulose
(``nitrocellulose'') from France. Industrial nitrocellulose is a dry,
white, amorphous synthetic chemical with a nitrogen content between
10.8 and 12.2 percent and is produced from the reaction of cellulose
with nitric acid. Industrial nitrocellulose is used as a film-former in
coatings, lacquers, furniture finishes, and printing inks. The scope of
this order does not include explosive grade nitrocellulose, which has a
nitrogen content greater than 12.2 percent. Industrial nitrocellulose
is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'')
item number 3912.20.00. The HTS item number is provided for convenience
and customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive.
History of the Order
The antidumping duty order on nitrocellulose from France was
published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1983 (48 FR
36303).1 In that order, the Department determined that the
weighted-average dumping margin for all entries of the subject
merchandise was 1.38 percent.2 Since that time, the
Department has completed several administrative reviews.3 To
date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in
this case. The order remains in effect for all manufacturers and
exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Industrial Nitrocellulose from France; Antidumping Duty
Order, 48 FR 36303 (August 10, 1983).
\2\ However, the underlying investigation and subsequent
administrative reviews dealt with only one French company, Societe
Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs (``SNPE'') except in the most
recent administrative review in which Bergerac, N.C. (``Bergerac''),
a successor company with respect to production of the subject
merchandise and a subsidiary of SNPE, became the subject of the
review.
\3\ See Industrial Nitrocellulose From France: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR 43227 (December 1,
1986); Industrial Nitrocellulose From France: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 15262 (April 28,
1988); Industrial Nitrocellulose From France: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 27185 (July 19, 1988);
Industrial Nitrocellulose From France: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 49085 (September 14, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping duty order on nitrocellulose from France (64 FR 29261),
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice
of Intent to Participate on behalf of Hercules Incorporated
(``Hercules'') on June 9, 1999, within the deadline specified in
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Hercules asserts
that it is not related to a foreign producer, foreign exporter, or
domestic importer of the subject merchandise and that it is not an
importer of the subject merchandise except on an occasional spot basis.
(See Hercules' June 9, 1999, Intent to Participate at 2.)
We received a complete substantive response from Hercules on July
1, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations
under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). Hercules claims interested party status
under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. manufacturer, producer,
and wholesaler of the subject merchandise. In its substantive response,
Hercules indicates that it is the sole remaining U.S. producer of
nitrocellulose, was the petitioner in the original investigation, and
has participated in all review proceedings. (See Hercules' July 1,
1999, Substantive Response at 1-2.)
We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent
interested party to this proceeding. Consequently, pursuant to section
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) of the Sunset Regulations, the Department
determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a
review of a transition order--an order which was in effect on January
1, 1995. See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. The Department determined
that the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on industrial
nitrocellulose from France is extraordinarily complicated. Therefore,
on October 12, 1999, the Department extended the time limit for
completion of the preliminary results of this review until not later
than December 28, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the
Act.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year
Reviews, 64 FR 55233 (October 12, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) 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 duty
order, and it 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 the magnitude of the margins are discussed
below. In addition, Hercules' comments with respect to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins 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 bases for
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2). In addition, the Department
indicated that normally it will determine that revocation of an
antidumping duty 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).
In addition to considering the guidance on likelihood cited above,
section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine that revocation of an order is likely to lead
[[Page 57861]]
to continuation or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested
party waives its participation in the sunset review. In the instant
review, the Department did not receive a response from any respondent
interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset
Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
In its substantive response, Hercules asserts that the likelihood
of continuation or recurrence of dumping is high if the order is
revoked. (See July 1, 1999, substantive response of Hercules at 3-6.)
To support its assertion, Hercules points out that, during the 1990s,
Bergerac continued to increase its extent of dumping of the subject
merchandise. Hercules notes that, after finding Bergerac was dumping at
the rate of 4.39 percent for the period of 1986-1987, in the next and
the most recent administrative review covering 1996-1997, the
Department determined that the dumping margin for Bergerac was 13.35
percent. Id. Hercules argues that Bergerac has demonstrated over the
past decade that it has to dump in order to export the subject
merchandise to the United States.
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department
considered the import volumes of the subject merchandise before and
after the issuance of the order. The data supplied by Hercules and
those of the United States Census Bureau IM146s and the Commission
indicate that, during 1990s, the import volumes of the subject
merchandise have shown an increasing trend.5 Specifically,
between 1994 and 1998, the Commission's data show a rather substantial
increase in the import volumes of the subject merchandise vis a vis
pre-order volumes.6 Therefore, the Department determines
that the import volumes of the subject merchandise increased or showed
an increasing trend after the issuance of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The import volumes of the subject merchandise during the
1990s are as follows (the order was issued in August 1983; numbers
are in metric tons): 1990--188; 1991--306; 1992--788; 1993--1,633;
1994--2,564; 1995--2,338; 1996--2,760; 1997--4,377; 1998--3,883.
These numbers correspond exactly with the Commission data.
\6\ See footnote 5, supra. During 1994--1998, the average import
volume of the subject merchandise was 3,184.4 metric tons, which
denotes a 36.58 percent increase over the average of 1982 and 1983
pre-order import levels (2,331.5 metric tons).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and House Report at 63-64, the Department also considers
whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the
issuance of the order. If companies continue to dump with the
discipline of an order in place, the Department may reasonably infer
that dumping would continue were the discipline removed. After
examining the published findings with respect to weighted-average
dumping margins in the original investigation and from the previous
administrative reviews,7 the Department determines that,
since the issuance of the order, except for the period between May 1983
and July 1986, the weighted-average dumping margins for the subject
merchandise have continued at above the de minimis level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See footnote 3, supra. Although the weighted-average dumping
margins of the subject merchandise decreased to zero or de minimis
levels in each of the first three administrative reviews (from the
original investigation margin of 1.38 percent to 0.17 percent in the
first review, 0 percent in the second review, and 0.07 percent in
the third review), in the fourth review, the margin increased to
4.39 percent, and in the most recent, fifth, review, the dumping
margin increased to 13.35 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that dumping of the subject merchandise continued above the
de minimis level after the issuance of the order and that respondent
interested parties have waived their right to participate in this
review, the Department agrees with Hercules' contention that dumping is
likely to continue if the order is revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will
normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in
the final determination in the original investigation. Further, 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.)
The Department, in its final determination of sales at less-than-
fair-value, published a weighted-average dumping margin for SNPE and
all-others of 1.38 percent.8 To date, the Department has not
issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Industrial Nitrocellulose from France, 48 FR 21615 (May 13, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, while acknowledging that the
Department normally will provide the Commission with the dumping
margins from the original investigation, Hercules argues that, in the
instant review, the Department should report to the Commission a more
recently calculated margin because Bergerac increased its dumping in
order to increase its market share in the United States. (See the July
1, 1999, Substantive Response of Hercules at 6-7.) In addition to
supplying data which indicate clearly that Bergerac's market share in
the United States increased during the 1990s,9 Hercules also
claims that Bergerac's market behavior of not raising its export
prices,10 after a higher dumping margin was imposed in the
most recent administrative review,11 suggests that Bergerac
intends to continue dumping at the recent, higher margins to hold onto
or to increase its market share. Id. Therefore, Hercules urges the
Department to provide to the Commission the more recent, higher margin
because that margin is a better indicator of Bergerac's likely behavior
in the event the order is revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In particular, during and after the period covered by the
latest administrative review, in which the Department found
substantially increased dumping of the subject merchandise,
Bergerac's market share increased rather significantly as well
(inasmuch as the U.S. demand for the domestic like product has
remained stable during the relevant period, Bergerac's increase in
the volume of exports of the subject merchandise is directly
translated to the increase in Bergerac's market share). Also, in
general, during the 1990's, Bergerac's market share showed an
increasing trend; this trend started after the Department's fourth
administrative review in which the Department found that Bergerac
was dumping at 4.39 percent rather than at the zero or de minimis
levels, which the Department found during the first three
administrative reviews.
\10\ To support this, Hercules submitted its business manager's
sworn affidavit, in which the business manager indicated that
Bergerac had not offered any price increase in its offers to
customers since Bergerac's antidumping margin increased from 4.39
percent to 13.35 percent in September 1998. (See the July 1, 1999
Substantive Response of Hercules, attachment 4.)
\11\ See footnote 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department agrees with the Hercules' argument pertaining to the
margin that is likely to prevail were the order revoked. In the Sunset
Policy Bulletin, the Department indicated that, when a company chooses
to increase dumping in order to maintain or increase its market share,
the Department may report a more recently calculated margin to the
Commission if dumping margins increased after the issuance of the
order. (See section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) Absent
argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department sees no reason to
change its practice as articulated in the Sunset Policy Bulletin of
selecting a more recently calculated rate when increased weighted-
average dumping margins for a company coincide with its increased
market share of the subject merchandise. We will report to the
[[Page 57862]]
Commission the company-specific and all-others rate contained in the
Final Results of Review section of this notice.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bergerac, N.C.............................................. 13.35
All Others................................................. 1.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated October 21, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-28069 Filed 10-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P