Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Liquid Sulfur Dioxide from Canada, 69735-69738 [E5-6370]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Notices
Background
On September 28, 2001, the
Department published the Final
Determination, covering the period of
investigation (‘‘POI’’) April 1, 2000
through September 30, 2000. On
November 29, 2001, the antidumping
duty order was published. See Notice of
the Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
From the People’s Republic of China, 66
FR 59561 (November 29, 2001). Anshan
Iron & Steel Company, Ltd., New Iron &
Steel Company, Ltd., and Angang Group
International Trade Corporation
(collectively ‘‘Anshan’’), Benxi Iron &
Steel Company, Ltd., Benxi Steel Plate
Company, Ltd., and Benxi Iron & Steel
Group International Economic and
Trade Company Ltd. (collectively
‘‘Benxi’’), and Shanghai Baosteel Group
Corporation, Baosteel America, Inc., and
Baosteel Group International Trade
Corporation (‘‘Baosteel’’) (collectively
‘‘Respondents’’) contested various
aspects of the Final Determination.
On July 16, 2003, the CIT issued its
opinion and remanded to the
Department two issues in the Final
Determination for reconsideration: (1)
with respect to the Department’s
decision to assign surrogate values to
Respondents’ self–produced factors, the
CIT ordered the Department to either
provide an adequate explanation for its
deviation from previous practice, or
assign surrogate values to Respondents’
inputs into its self–produced factors;
and (2) with respect to the Department’s
decision not to treat defective hot–rolled
sheet as a byproduct, the Court ordered
the Department to adjust Baosteel’s
factors–of-production calculations by
including defective sheet as
merchandise under investigation. See
Anshan Iron & Steel Co. v. United
States, Slip Op. 03–83 (CIT 2003).
Pursuant to the CIT’s decision, the
Department issued its remand. See Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
Remand (November 7, 2003) (available
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov). On September
22, 2004, the CIT issued its opinion
regarding the Department’s first remand,
affirming in part and remanding in part
the Department’s results. The CIT
ordered the Department: 1) to reopen
the record in this case, admit the
complete financial statements of the
surrogate Indian producer, Tata Iron and
Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘TATA’’), and consider
that information in its redetermination;
and 2) reconsider its factors–ofproduction analysis by either providing
an adequate explanation for its
deviation from previous practice, or
assigning surrogate values to
Respondents’ factors of production for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Nov 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
their self–produced intermediate inputs.
See Anshan Iron & Steel Company, Ltd.
v. United States, 358 F. Supp. 2d. 1236
(CIT 2004). The Department complied
with the CIT’s request and reopened the
record to admit TATA’s complete
financial statement. Based on an
analysis of this new information, the
Department recalculated Respondents’
normal value to assign surrogate values
to each of the inputs used by
Respondents to self–produce electricity,
nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. On January
7, 2005, the Department filed its second
remand results. See Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Remand
(January 7, 2005) (available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov). On March 15, 2005, the
CIT sustained the Department’s second
remand results. See Anshan Iron & Steel
Co. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d
128 (CIT 2005).
Amended Final Determination
Because there is now a final and
conclusive decision in the court
proceeding, we are amending the Final
Determination to reflect the results of
the second remand determination. The
recalculated margins are as follows:
Manufacturer/exporter
Weighted–
average
margin
(percent)
69735
Dated: November 8, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–6373 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–122–852]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation: Liquid Sulfur Dioxide
from Canada
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate
Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4929 and (202)
482–4007, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION
The Petition
On September 30, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (Department)
31.09 received a petition on imports of liquid
sulfur dioxide from Canada filed in
proper form by Calabrian Corporation
(the petitioner) on behalf of the
57.19 domestic industry producing liquid
sulfur dioxide1 (Liquid Sulfur Dioxide
from Canada: Antidumping Duty
Petition dated September 30, 2005
(Petition)). The period of investigation
(POI) is July 1, 2004, through June 30,
12.39 2005.
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), the petitioner alleged that imports
of liquid sulfur dioxide from Canada are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
Cash Deposit Requirements
United States at less than fair value
within the meaning of section 731 of the
The Department will direct United
States Customs and Border Protection to Act, and that such imports are
materially injuring or threaten to injure
require, on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal an industry in the United States.
Register, the cash deposit rates listed
Scope of Investigation
above for the subject merchandise.
The product covered by this
These cash deposit requirements, when
investigation is technical or commercial
imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of an
1 See Memorandum from the Team to Barbara
administrative review of this order.
Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary:
This notice is issued and published in Decision Memorandum Concerning Filing Date of
Petition, October 6, 2005, (explaining that the
accordance with sections 735(d) and
proper filing date is September 30, 2005, as the
777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
petition was filed at the ITC after the noon deadline
amended.
on September 29).
Angang Group International
Trade Corporation, ..................
New Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.,.
and Angang Group Hong Kong
Co., Ltd..
Benxi Iron & Steel Group International ....................................
Economic & Trade Co., Ltd.,.
Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd.,.
and Benxi Iron & Steel Group
Co., Ltd..
Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation, ..................................
Baoshan Iron and Steel Co.,
Ltd.,.
and Baosteel Group International
Trade Corporation.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
69736
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Notices
grade and refrigeration grade liquid
sulfur dioxide of a minimum 99.98
percent assay. Sulfur dioxide is
identified by the chemical formula SO2.
The Chemical Abstract Service (CAS)
No. for sulfur dioxide is 7446–09–5.
Liquid sulfur dioxide is pure sulfur
dioxide gas compressed through
refrigeration and stored under pressure.
Sulfur dioxide in its gaseous state is
excluded from the petition.
Liquid sulfur dioxide subject to this
investigation is currently classifiable
under subheading 2811.23.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). While the
HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the petition, we
discussed the scope with the petitioner
to ensure that it accurately reflects the
product for which the domestic industry
is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed
in the preamble to the Department’s
regulations, we are setting aside a
period for interested parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 27323
(May 19, 1997). The Department
encourages all interested parties to
submit such comments within 20
calendar days of publication of this
initiation notice. Comments should be
addressed to Import Administration’s
Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230 - Attn: Irene
Darzenta Tzafolias. The period of scope
consultations is intended to provide the
Department with ample opportunity to
consider all comments and consult with
interested parties prior to the issuance
of the preliminary determination.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed by or on behalf
of the domestic industry. In order to
determine whether a petition has been
filed by or on behalf of the industry, the
Department, pursuant to section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, determines
whether a minimum percentage of the
relevant industry supports the petition.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Nov 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 any
statistically valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers 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 (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. See Algoma Steel Corp.
Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639,
642–44 (CIT 1988); see also High
Information Content Flat Panel Displays
and Display Glass Therefor from Japan:
Final Determination; Rescission of
Investigation and Partial Dismissal of
Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–81 (July
16, 1991).
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 petition.
With regard to the domestic like
product, the petitioner does not offer a
definition of domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted in the
petition, we have determined there is a
single domestic like product, liquid
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sulfur dioxide, which is defined further
in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’
section above, and we have analyzed
industry support in terms of that
domestic like product. See Initiation
Checklist at Attachment 1.
Based on information provided in the
petition, the share of total estimated
U.S. production of the domestic like
product in calendar year 2004
represented by the petitioner did not
account for more than 50 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product. Therefore, in accordance with
732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we polled the
industry. See Notice of Extension of the
Deadline for Determining the Adequacy
of the Petition: Liquid Sulfur Dioxide
from Canada, 70 FR 61937 (October 27,
2005).
On October 7, 2005, we issued polling
questionnaires to all known domestic
producers of liquid sulfur dioxide
identified in the petition. On October
12, 2005, we sent a letter to the
domestic producers transmitting revised
scope language provided by the
petitioner on October 11, 2005, as well
as a clarification regarding the reporting
of liquid sulfur dioxide that was
produced and consumed internally. The
questionnaires are on file in the Central
Records Unit (CRU) in room B–099 of
the main Department of Commerce
building. We requested that each
company complete the polling
questionnaire and certify their
responses by faxing their responses to
the Department by the due date. For a
detailed discussion of the responses
received, please see the Initiation
Checklist at Attachment I.
On October 25, 2005, we sent
additional questions to Rhodia Inc.
(Rhodia) and Chemtrade Logistics (U.S.)
Inc. (Chemtrade U.S.), domestic
producers expressing opposition to the
petition, and received responses on
October 31, 2005. Based on the
responses received, we determined that
Rhodia’s opposition should be
disregarded in our industry support
calculation.
Section 732(c)(4)(B)(i) of the Act
states that the Department ‘‘shall
disregard the position of domestic
producers who oppose the petition if
such producers are related to foreign
producers, as defined in section
771(4)(B)(ii), unless such domestic
producers demonstrate that their
interests as domestic producers would
be adversely affected by the imposition
of an antidumping duty order.’’ In
addition, section 351.203(e)(4)(i) of the
Department’s regulations states that the
position of a domestic producer that
opposes the petition may be disregarded
if such producer is related to a foreign
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Notices
producer or to a foreign exporter under
section 771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act, unless
such domestic producer demonstrates to
the Secretary’s satisfaction that its
interests as a domestic producer would
be adversely affected by the imposition
of an antidumping order. Moreover,
section 771(4)(B)(ii)(II) contemplates
that the Department will consider
whether an exporter controls a
producer, when determining whether a
domestic producer is related to a foreign
company for purposes of section
732(c)(4)(B)(i).
In its October 31, 2005, response,
Rhodia confirmed that it has a
significant relationship with a Canadian
exporter of subject merchandise.
Specifically, Rhodia, which ceased
production of the subject merchandise
on December 31, 2004, entered into an
asset purchase and sale agreement with
Chemtrade Logistics Inc. (Chemtrade
Canada) at the end of 2003, whereby it
sold all of its domestic manufacturing
and sales business to Chemtrade Canada
and was obligated not to compete in the
liquid sulfur dioxide industry for a
period of 5 years. In addition, Rhodia is
currently marketing and distributing
liquid sulfur dioxide supplied by
Chemtrade Canada, and is entitled to a
commission on these sales.
In this case, we find that Rhodia and
Chemtrade Canada are related, as
defined in section 771(4)(B)(ii)(II) of the
Act. Section 771(4)(B)(ii)(II) states that a
producer and an exporter or importer
shall be considered to be related parties
if ‘‘the exporter or importer directly or
indirectly controls the producer.’’ This
subparagraph also states that ‘‘a party
shall be considered to directly or
indirectly control another party if the
party is legally or operationally in a
position to exercise restraint or
direction over the other party.’’ Because
of the nature of the relationship between
Rhodia and Chemtrade Canada,
Chemtrade Canada is legally and
operationally in a position to restrain or
direct Rhodia. For further discussion,
see Initiation Checklist.
Section 732(c)(4)(B)(i) of the Act also
states that the Department will disregard
the opposition of related producers
‘‘unless such domestic producers
demonstrate that their interests as
domestic producers would be adversely
affected by the imposition of an
antidumping duty order.’’ Rhodia has
not demonstrated that its interests as a
domestic producer would be adversely
affected by the imposition of an
antidumping order. Furthermore, it is
unclear what ‘‘interests as a domestic
producer’’ Rhodia has because it no
longer produces the domestic like
product pursuant to its business
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Nov 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
arrangement with Chemtrade Canada.
Therefore, we determine that it is
appropriate to disregard Rhodia’s
opposition to the petition under section
732(c)(4)(B)(i) of the Act and section
351.203(e)(4)(i) of the Department’s
regulations based on the fact that it is
related to Chemtrade Canada and failed
to demonstrate that its interests as a
domestic producer would be adversely
affected by the imposition of an
antidumping duty order on liquid sulfur
dioxide.
Our analysis of the data indicates that
the domestic producers of liquid sulfur
dioxide who support the petition
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product and, once Rhodia’s opposition
is disregarded, 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. See
Initiation Checklist at Attachment I.
Accordingly, the Department
determines that the industry support
requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A) of
the Act have been met. The petitioner
has suggested that we disregard another
party who opposed the petition,
Chemtrade U.S., because it is related to
Chemtrade Canada and is a significant
importer of liquid sulfur dioxide from
Canada; however, because the petitioner
has met the 50 percent threshold, after
disregarding Rhodia’s opposition, we
have determined that we need not
address the opposition of Chemtrade
U.S.
Therefore, the Department determines
that petitioner filed this petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because
it is an interested party as defined in
section 771(9)(F) of the Act and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the antidumping
investigation that it is requesting the
Department initiate. See Initiation
Checklist at Attachment I (Industry
Support).
U.S. Price and Normal Value
The following is a description of the
allegation of sales at less than fair value
upon which the Department based its
decision to initiate this investigation.
The sources of data for the deductions
relating to the U.S. and home market
prices are also discussed in the
Initiation Checklist. Should the need
arise to use any of this information as
facts available under section 776 of the
Act in our preliminary or final
determination, we may reexamine the
information and revise the margin
calculations, if appropriate.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69737
Export Price
Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act,
the petitioner based export price on two
price quotations from a Canadian
producer of liquid sulfur dioxide to U.S.
customers. See petition at 18–20 and
Attachment 15 and amended petition at
9. The Department deducted from these
prices freight expenses and merchandise
processing fees of 0.21 percent of
dutiable value (net of freight). The
freight rates are based on the published
2005 freight tariffs of Canadian Pacific
Railway. See proprietary Initiation
Checklist.
Normal Value
To calculate NV, pursuant to section
773(a) of the Act, the petitioner
provided a 2003 published price for
liquid sulfur dioxide and June 2005
Canadian prices obtained through
foreign market research. See petition at
15–18 and Attachments 10–13 and
amended petition at 6–9. For purposes
of this initiation, we have relied on the
market research by the petitioner of
Canadian liquid sulfur dioxide prices
because these prices are more
contemporaneous. In addition, we
disregarded two of these prices and
recalculated another price based on
source documentation in the petition.
See proprietary Initiation Checklist. The
petitioner deducted estimated freight
expenses to derive ex–factory prices.
The freight rates are based on the
published 2005 freight tariffs of
Canadian Pacific Railway. See
proprietary Initiation Checklist.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the
petitioner, there is reason to believe that
imports of liquid sulfur dioxide from
Canada are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair
value. Based upon comparisons of
export price to the NV, calculated in
accordance with section 773(a) of the
Act, the estimated dumping margins for
liquid sulfur dioxide from Canada,
revised as a result of the Department’s
recalculations, range from 141.14
percent to 219.99 percent.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The 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 individual and cumulated
imports of the subject merchandise sold
at less than NV. The petitioner contends
that the industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by the decline in customer
base, market share, domestic shipments,
prices and profit. We have assessed the
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
69738
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Notices
allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury and causation,
and we have determined that these
allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation. See
Initiation Checklists.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon our examination of the
petition on liquid sulfur dioxide from
Canada, we find that this petition meets
the requirements of section 732 of the
Act. Therefore, we are initiating an
antidumping duty investigation to
determine whether imports of liquid
sulfur dioxide from Canada are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value. Unless
postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination no later than
140 days after the date of this initiation.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the petition has been
provided to the Government of Canada.
International Trade Commission
Notification
We have notified the International
Trade Commission (ITC) of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 25 days after the date on which
it receives notice of this initiation,
whether there is a reasonable indication
that imports of liquid sulfur dioxide
from Canada are causing material injury,
or threatening to cause material injury,
to a U.S. industry. See section 733(a)(2)
of the Act. A negative ITC determination
will result in the investigation being
terminated; otherwise, this investigation
will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: November 9, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–6370 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Nov 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–583–603]
Top–of-the–Stove Stainless Steel
Cooking Ware from Taiwan;
Revocation of the Antidumping Duty
Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 751(c) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), the International Trade
Commission (ITC) determined that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order on top–of-the–stove stainless steel
cooking ware (cooking ware) from
Taiwan would not be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time. See Investigations Nos. 731–TA–
298 and 299 (Second Review);
Investigations Nos. 701–TA–267 and
268 and 731–TA–304 and 305 (Second
Review); Porcelain–on-Steel Cooking
Ware From China and Taiwan; Top–ofthe–Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware
From Korea and Taiwan, 70 FR 67740
(November 8, 2005) (ITC
Determination). Therefore, pursuant to
section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.222(i)(1)(iii), the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is revoking
the antidumping duty order on cooking
ware from Taiwan. Pursuant to section
751(c)(6)(A)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of
revocation of the antidumping duty
order is April 18, 2005, the fifth
anniversary of the date of publication in
the Federal Register of the
determination to continue the order.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Zev Primor,
AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4114.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On March 1, 2005, the Department
and the ITC initiated sunset reviews of
the antidumping duty order on cooking
ware from Taiwan pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 9919
(March 1, 2005). As a result of its
review, the Department found that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order would likely lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping, and notified
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the ITC of the magnitude of the margins
likely to prevail were the order revoked.
See Top–of-the–Stove Stainless Steel
Cooking Ware from the Republic of
Korea and Taiwan; Final Results of the
Expedited Sunset Reviews of the
Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 56443
(September 27, 2005).
On October 27, 2005, the ITC
determined, pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Act, that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on cooking
ware from Taiwan would not likely lead
to continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time. See USITC Publication 3808
(October 2005) and ITC Determination.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this
antidumping duty order is cooking ware
from Taiwan. The subject merchandise
is all non–electric cooking ware of
stainless steel which may have one or
more layers of aluminum, copper or
carbon steel for more even heat
distribution. The subject merchandise
includes skillets, frying pans, omelette
pans, saucepans, double boilers, stock
pots, dutch ovens, casseroles, steamers,
and other stainless steel vessels, all for
cooking on stove top burners, except tea
kettles and fish poachers. Excluded
from the scope of the orders are
stainless steel oven ware and stainless
steel kitchen ware. The subject
merchandise is currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS) item
numbers 7323.93.00 and 9604.00.00.
The HTSUS item numbers are provided
for convenience and Customs purposes
only. The written description remains
dispositive.
Determination
As a result of the determination by the
ITC that revocation of the antidumping
duty order would not be likely to lead
to continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States, the Department, pursuant to
section 751(d)(2) of the Act, is revoking
the antidumping duty order on cooking
ware from Taiwan. Pursuant to section
751(c)(6)(A)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.222(i)(2)(i), revocation is effective
April 18, 2005, the fifth anniversary of
the date of the determination to
continue the order. The Department will
instruct United States Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to discontinue
the suspension of liquidation and
collection of cash deposits on entries of
the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after April 18, 2005.
The Department will instruct CBP to
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 221 (Thursday, November 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69735-69738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-6370]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-852]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Liquid Sulfur
Dioxide from Canada
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4929 and (202) 482-4007, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION
The Petition
On September 30, 2005, the Department of Commerce (Department)
received a petition on imports of liquid sulfur dioxide from Canada
filed in proper form by Calabrian Corporation (the petitioner) on
behalf of the domestic industry producing liquid sulfur dioxide\1\
(Liquid Sulfur Dioxide from Canada: Antidumping Duty Petition dated
September 30, 2005 (Petition)). The period of investigation (POI) is
July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum from the Team to Barbara Tillman, Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary: Decision Memorandum Concerning Filing
Date of Petition, October 6, 2005, (explaining that the proper
filing date is September 30, 2005, as the petition was filed at the
ITC after the noon deadline on September 29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleged that imports of liquid sulfur
dioxide from Canada 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 threaten to
injure an industry in the United States.
Scope of Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is technical or
commercial
[[Page 69736]]
grade and refrigeration grade liquid sulfur dioxide of a minimum 99.98
percent assay. Sulfur dioxide is identified by the chemical formula
SO2. The Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) No. for sulfur
dioxide is 7446-09-5. Liquid sulfur dioxide is pure sulfur dioxide gas
compressed through refrigeration and stored under pressure. Sulfur
dioxide in its gaseous state is excluded from the petition.
Liquid sulfur dioxide subject to this investigation is currently
classifiable under subheading 2811.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the
petitioner to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which
the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the
preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period
for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295,
27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all interested parties
to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication of this
initiation notice. Comments should be addressed to Import
Administration's Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230
- Attn: Irene Darzenta Tzafolias. The period of scope consultations is
intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider
all comments and consult with interested parties prior to the issuance
of the preliminary determination.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed by
or on behalf of the domestic industry. In order to determine whether a
petition has been filed by or on behalf of the industry, the
Department, pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, determines
whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the
petition. 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 any statistically valid sampling
method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers 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 (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. See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States,
688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); see also High Information Content
Flat Panel Displays and Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final
Determination; Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of
Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
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
petition.
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not
offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of
the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted
in the petition, we have determined there is a single domestic like
product, liquid sulfur dioxide, which is defined further in the ``Scope
of the Investigation'' section above, and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like product. See Initiation
Checklist at Attachment 1.
Based on information provided in the petition, the share of total
estimated U.S. production of the domestic like product in calendar year
2004 represented by the petitioner did not account for more than 50
percent of the total production of the domestic like product.
Therefore, in accordance with 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we polled the
industry. See Notice of Extension of the Deadline for Determining the
Adequacy of the Petition: Liquid Sulfur Dioxide from Canada, 70 FR
61937 (October 27, 2005).
On October 7, 2005, we issued polling questionnaires to all known
domestic producers of liquid sulfur dioxide identified in the petition.
On October 12, 2005, we sent a letter to the domestic producers
transmitting revised scope language provided by the petitioner on
October 11, 2005, as well as a clarification regarding the reporting of
liquid sulfur dioxide that was produced and consumed internally. The
questionnaires are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) in room B-
099 of the main Department of Commerce building. We requested that each
company complete the polling questionnaire and certify their responses
by faxing their responses to the Department by the due date. For a
detailed discussion of the responses received, please see the
Initiation Checklist at Attachment I.
On October 25, 2005, we sent additional questions to Rhodia Inc.
(Rhodia) and Chemtrade Logistics (U.S.) Inc. (Chemtrade U.S.), domestic
producers expressing opposition to the petition, and received responses
on October 31, 2005. Based on the responses received, we determined
that Rhodia's opposition should be disregarded in our industry support
calculation.
Section 732(c)(4)(B)(i) of the Act states that the Department
``shall disregard the position of domestic producers who oppose the
petition if such producers are related to foreign producers, as defined
in section 771(4)(B)(ii), unless such domestic producers demonstrate
that their interests as domestic producers would be adversely affected
by the imposition of an antidumping duty order.'' In addition, section
351.203(e)(4)(i) of the Department's regulations states that the
position of a domestic producer that opposes the petition may be
disregarded if such producer is related to a foreign
[[Page 69737]]
producer or to a foreign exporter under section 771(4)(B)(ii) of the
Act, unless such domestic producer demonstrates to the Secretary's
satisfaction that its interests as a domestic producer would be
adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping order. Moreover,
section 771(4)(B)(ii)(II) contemplates that the Department will
consider whether an exporter controls a producer, when determining
whether a domestic producer is related to a foreign company for
purposes of section 732(c)(4)(B)(i).
In its October 31, 2005, response, Rhodia confirmed that it has a
significant relationship with a Canadian exporter of subject
merchandise. Specifically, Rhodia, which ceased production of the
subject merchandise on December 31, 2004, entered into an asset
purchase and sale agreement with Chemtrade Logistics Inc. (Chemtrade
Canada) at the end of 2003, whereby it sold all of its domestic
manufacturing and sales business to Chemtrade Canada and was obligated
not to compete in the liquid sulfur dioxide industry for a period of 5
years. In addition, Rhodia is currently marketing and distributing
liquid sulfur dioxide supplied by Chemtrade Canada, and is entitled to
a commission on these sales.
In this case, we find that Rhodia and Chemtrade Canada are related,
as defined in section 771(4)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Section
771(4)(B)(ii)(II) states that a producer and an exporter or importer
shall be considered to be related parties if ``the exporter or importer
directly or indirectly controls the producer.'' This subparagraph also
states that ``a party shall be considered to directly or indirectly
control another party if the party is legally or operationally in a
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other party.''
Because of the nature of the relationship between Rhodia and Chemtrade
Canada, Chemtrade Canada is legally and operationally in a position to
restrain or direct Rhodia. For further discussion, see Initiation
Checklist.
Section 732(c)(4)(B)(i) of the Act also states that the Department
will disregard the opposition of related producers ``unless such
domestic producers demonstrate that their interests as domestic
producers would be adversely affected by the imposition of an
antidumping duty order.'' Rhodia has not demonstrated that its
interests as a domestic producer would be adversely affected by the
imposition of an antidumping order. Furthermore, it is unclear what
``interests as a domestic producer'' Rhodia has because it no longer
produces the domestic like product pursuant to its business arrangement
with Chemtrade Canada. Therefore, we determine that it is appropriate
to disregard Rhodia's opposition to the petition under section
732(c)(4)(B)(i) of the Act and section 351.203(e)(4)(i) of the
Department's regulations based on the fact that it is related to
Chemtrade Canada and failed to demonstrate that its interests as a
domestic producer would be adversely affected by the imposition of an
antidumping duty order on liquid sulfur dioxide.
Our analysis of the data indicates that the domestic producers of
liquid sulfur dioxide who support the petition account for at least 25
percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, once
Rhodia's opposition is disregarded, 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. See
Initiation Checklist at Attachment I. Accordingly, the Department
determines that the industry support requirements of section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act have been met. The petitioner has suggested
that we disregard another party who opposed the petition, Chemtrade
U.S., because it is related to Chemtrade Canada and is a significant
importer of liquid sulfur dioxide from Canada; however, because the
petitioner has met the 50 percent threshold, after disregarding
Rhodia's opposition, we have determined that we need not address the
opposition of Chemtrade U.S.
Therefore, the Department determines that petitioner filed this
petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested
party as defined in section 771(9)(F) of the Act and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
antidumping investigation that it is requesting the Department
initiate. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment I (Industry Support).
U.S. Price and Normal Value
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate this investigation. The sources of data for the deductions
relating to the U.S. and home market prices are also discussed in the
Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this
information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our
preliminary or final determination, we may reexamine the information
and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.
Export Price
Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, the petitioner based export
price on two price quotations from a Canadian producer of liquid sulfur
dioxide to U.S. customers. See petition at 18-20 and Attachment 15 and
amended petition at 9. The Department deducted from these prices
freight expenses and merchandise processing fees of 0.21 percent of
dutiable value (net of freight). The freight rates are based on the
published 2005 freight tariffs of Canadian Pacific Railway. See
proprietary Initiation Checklist.
Normal Value
To calculate NV, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, the
petitioner provided a 2003 published price for liquid sulfur dioxide
and June 2005 Canadian prices obtained through foreign market research.
See petition at 15-18 and Attachments 10-13 and amended petition at 6-
9. For purposes of this initiation, we have relied on the market
research by the petitioner of Canadian liquid sulfur dioxide prices
because these prices are more contemporaneous. In addition, we
disregarded two of these prices and recalculated another price based on
source documentation in the petition. See proprietary Initiation
Checklist. The petitioner deducted estimated freight expenses to derive
ex-factory prices. The freight rates are based on the published 2005
freight tariffs of Canadian Pacific Railway. See proprietary Initiation
Checklist.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of liquid sulfur dioxide from Canada are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Based upon comparisons of export price to the NV, calculated in
accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping
margins for liquid sulfur dioxide from Canada, revised as a result of
the Department's recalculations, range from 141.14 percent to 219.99
percent.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The 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 individual and cumulated imports
of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. The petitioner
contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the
decline in customer base, market share, domestic shipments, prices and
profit. We have assessed the
[[Page 69738]]
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation. See Initiation Checklists.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon our examination of the petition on liquid sulfur dioxide
from Canada, we find that this petition meets the requirements of
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping
duty investigation to determine whether imports of liquid sulfur
dioxide from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value. Unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the petition has been provided to the Government of
Canada.
International Trade Commission Notification
We have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date
on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a
reasonable indication that imports of liquid sulfur dioxide from Canada
are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury,
to a U.S. industry. See section 733(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC
determination will result in the investigation being terminated;
otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: November 9, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-6370 Filed 11-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
