Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Glycine from Japan, 52349-52355 [E7-18080]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 177 (Thursday, September 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52349-52355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18080]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-868]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Glycine from Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 2007.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that imports of glycine from Japan 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination. We will make our final determination within 75 days 
after the date of this preliminary determination.

[[Page 52350]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Richard 
Rimlinger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665 and (202) 482-4477, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 26, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the initiation of an antidumping 
investigation on glycine from Japan. See Glycine from India, Japan, and 
the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 
72 FR 20816 (April 26, 2007) (Initiation Notice). The Department set 
aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage. See Initiation Notice. We did not receive comments 
regarding product coverage from any interested party.
    On May 18, 2007, we sent Quantity and Value (Q&V) questionnaires to 
all companies identified in the petition as well as to companies for 
which we obtained public information indicating that the companies 
produced and/or exported glycine. See the June 22, 2007, Memorandum to 
the File Re: Issuance of Quantity and Value Questionnaires to Potential 
Japanese Respondents. We received responses from eleven companies. We 
did not receive responses from the following companies: Showa Denko 
K.K., Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., Ltd., Seino 
Logix Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K., Chelest Corporation. 
On June 1, 2007, we issued a letter to companies from which we did not 
receive Q&V responses extending the deadline for submission to June 8, 
2007. In that letter we notified parties that failure to respond to our 
June 1, 2007, request for information may result in the application of 
facts available, including an adverse inference, to the companies in 
question in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act). On June 26, 2007, we selected Nu-Scaan 
Nutraceuticals Ltd. (Nu-Scaan) and Yuki Gosei Co., Ltd. (Yuki Gosei) as 
mandatory respondents. See the Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation Glycine from Japan - Respondent 
Selection,'' dated June 26, 2007.
    On May 25, 2007, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued 
its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
by reason of imports of glycine from Japan. See Glycine from India, 
Japan, and Korea, 72 FR 29352 (May 25, 2007).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is January 1, 2006, through December 
31, 2006.

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is glycine, which in 
its solid (i.e., crystallized) form is a free-flowing crystalline 
material. Glycine is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, buffering 
agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, metal complexing 
agent, dietary supplement, and is used in certain pharmaceuticals. The 
scope of this investigation covers glycine in any form and purity 
level. Although glycine blended with other materials is not covered by 
the scope of this investigation, glycine to which relatively small 
quantities of other materials have been added is covered by the scope. 
Glycine's chemical composition is C2H5NO2 and is normally classified 
under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS).
    The scope of this investigation also covers precursors of dried 
crystalline glycine, including, but not limited to, glycine slurry 
(i.e., glycine in a non-crystallized form) and sodium glycinate. 
Glycine slurry is classified under the same HTSUS subheading as 
crystallized glycine (2922.49.4020) and sodium glycinate is classified 
under subheading HTSUS 2922.49.8000.
    While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Issuance of Questionnaire

    On June 26, 2007, we issued sections A, B, C, D, and E\1\ of the 
antidumping questionnaire to Nu-Scaan and Yuki Gosei.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the antidumping duty questionnaire requests 
general information concerning a company's corporate structure and 
business practices, the merchandise under investigation, and the 
manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 
Section B requests a complete listing of all of the company's home-
market sales of the foreign like product or, if the home market is 
not viable, of sales of the foreign like product in the most 
appropriate third-country market. Section C requests a complete 
listing of the company's U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Section 
D requests information of the cost of production of the foreign like 
product and the constructed value of the merchandise under 
investigation. Section E requests information on further-
manufacturing activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nu-Scaan

    On July 17, 2007, we received a letter from Nu-Scaan requesting an 
extension of the July 16, 2007, deadline to respond to section A of our 
questionnaire. Nu-Scaan's extension request was filed one day past the 
deadline for responding to section A, as established in our 
questionnaire. Nu-Scaan's extension request was also not filed in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and 304 of our regulations. 
Specifically, Nu-Scaan's submission lacked the proper markings at the 
top right-hand corner of the cover letter required under 19 CFR 
351.303(d), it was not served to parties on the service list for this 
proceeding pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f), it did not contain a 
certificate of service pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(2), and it did not 
contain a certification of completeness and accuracy by the official 
responsible for presentation of the factual information pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.303(g). On July 17, 2007, despite Nu-Scaan's late and 
improperly filed extension request, we accepted it as a timely filing 
and granted Nu-Scaan's request for an extension in full, thus extending 
the deadline for Nu-Scaan to respond to section A of our questionnaire 
to July 26, 2007. In our July 17, 2007, letter replying to Nu-Scann's 
extension request, we described the various filing deficiencies that we 
had identified, informed Nu-Scaan that any further submissions from it 
that are not filed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and 304 of our 
regulations would be deemed untimely filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302, 
and that we would return such submissions without considering or 
retaining any information contained therein as part of the official 
record. We also informed Nu-Scaan that we may use facts otherwise 
available for Nu-Scaan's antidumping margin in this investigation 
pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
    On July 31, 2007, in order to provide Nu-Scaan with another 
opportunity to respond, we issued a letter to Nu-Scaan extending 
voluntarily the deadline for submission of the antidumping 
questionnaire response to August 7, 2007. On July 31, 2007, we received 
Nu-Scaan's section A response. Nu-Scaan's July 31, 2007, submission was 
not filed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and 304. Specifically, it 
did not contain the proper markings at the top right-hand corner of the 
cover letter required under 19 CFR 351.303(d), it was not served to 
parties on the service list for this proceeding pursuant to19 CFR 
351.303(f), it did not contain a certificate of service pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.303(f)(2), it did not provide an

[[Page 52351]]

explanation as to why certain bracketed information is entitled to 
business-proprietary treatment and lacked an agreement permitting 
disclosure under an administrative protective order pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.304(b)(1), it did not provide a full explanation of the reasons as 
to why certain information in double brackets was claimed to be exempt 
from disclosure under administrative protective order pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.304(b)(2), and no public versions of the submission were filed 
as required by 19 CFR 351.304(c). In our August 14, 2007, letter to Nu-
Scaan we described the specific filing deficiencies that we had 
identified with respect to its July 31, 2007, submission and informed 
Nu-Scaan that its section A response was an untimely filing pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.302 and that we were returning the submission without 
considering or retaining any information contained therein as part of 
the official record. We did not receive a response (or a request for 
extension to respond) from Nu-Scaan to sections B, C, and D, of our 
questionnaire by the close of business on August 7, 2007, the date of 
the extended deadline.

Yuki Gosei

    On July 11, 2007, we received Yuki Gosei's response to section A of 
our questionnaire. Yuki Gosei's July 11, 2007, submission was not filed 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and 304 of the regulations. 
Specifically, it lacked the requisite number of copies pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.303(c), it did not contain the proper markings at the top 
right-hand corner of the cover letter pursuant to19 CFR 351.303(d), it 
was not served on parties on the service list for this proceeding 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f), it did not contain a certificate of 
service as required under 19 CFR 351.303(f)(2), and it did not contain 
a certification of completeness and accuracy by the official 
responsible for presentation of the factual information pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.303(g). In a July 16, 2007, letter to Yuki Gosei, we described 
these specific filing deficiencies, we rejected the submission in 
question, and we requested Yuki Gosei to re-file its section A response 
properly by July 30, 2007, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and 304. 
In our July 16, 2007, letter to Yuki Gosei, we also informed it that 
any further submissions that were not filed in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303 and 304 would be deemed untimely filed pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.302, that we would return such submissions without considering or 
retaining any information contained therein as part of the official 
record, and that we may use facts otherwise available for Yuki Gosei's 
antidumping margin in this investigation pursuant to sections 776(a) 
and (b) of the Act.
    On July 26, 2007, we received Yuki Gosei's re-submission of its 
section A response to our questionnaire, but it was not filed in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Specifically, it lacked a certificate 
of service and was not served on interested parties, as required by 19 
CFR 351.303(f). In our July 31, 2007, letter to Yuki Gosei, we informed 
it that, despite yet another round of filing deficiencies on its part, 
we would accept Yuki Gosei's July 26, 2007, submission as timely filed, 
provided that Yuki Gosei file a letter with us confirming that it had 
served its section A response upon all interested parties by August 8, 
2007. In our July 31, 2007, letter to Yuki Gosei, we reiterated that, 
absent Yuki Gosei's fulfillment of the requested service requirements, 
we would reject its July 26, 2007, submission as untimely filed 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302, that we would return such submissions 
without considering or retaining any information contained therein as 
part of the official record, and that we may use facts otherwise 
available for Yuki Gosei's antidumping margin in this investigation 
pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
    We did not receive a letter from Yuki Gosei attesting that it had 
served its section A response upon interested parties. We also 
confirmed with interested parties that they were not served Yuki 
Gosei's section A response. On August 7, 2007, in order to provide Yuki 
Gosei with another opportunity to respond, we issued a letter to Yuki 
Gosei extending voluntarily the deadline for submitting a response to 
sections B, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaire to August 14, 
2007. We did not receive a response (or a request for extension to 
respond) from Yuki Gosei to sections B, C, and D of our questionnaire 
by the close of business on August 14, 2007, the date of the extended 
deadline. In our August 17, 2007, letter to Yuki Gosei we informed it 
that its July 26, 2007, section A response is an untimely filing 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302, and that we were returning the submission 
without considering or retaining any information contained therein as 
part of the official record.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of 
adverse facts available (AFA) is appropriate for the preliminary 
determination with respect to Nu-Scaan and Yuki Gosei.

A. Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails 
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a proceeding under 
this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in 782(i), the administering authority shall use, 
subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that, if the administering authority determines that a 
response to a request for information does not comply with the request, 
the administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party 
and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 
782(e) of the Act states further that the Department shall not decline 
to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements 
are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; 
(2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so 
incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the 
applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties.
    In this case, Nu-Scaan and Yuki Gosei did not provide pertinent 
information we requested that is necessary to calculate respective 
antidumping margins for the preliminary determination. Specifically, 
Nu-Scaan and Yuki Gosei failed to respond to all sections of our 
questionnaire, thereby withholding, among other things, home-market and 
U.S. sales information necessary for reaching the applicable 
determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In 
addition, Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co. Ltd., 
CBC Co., Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K., 
and Chelest Corporation did not respond to our Q&V questionnaire and, 
thus, they failed to provide pertinent information we requested that 
was needed in the consideration and selection of mandatory respondents, 
thus significantly impeding this proceeding. Thus, in reaching our 
preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and 
(C) of the Act, we have based dumping margins on the facts otherwise 
available for the

[[Page 52352]]

following firms: Nu-Scaan, Yoki Gosei, Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi Pure 
Chemical Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., 
Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K., and Chelest Corporation.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    In applying the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the 
Act provides that, if the administering authority finds that an 
interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under 
this title, the administering authority may use an inference adverse to 
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available.
    Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does 
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, 
vol.1 (1994) at 870 (SAA). Further, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith 
on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may 
make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). Although the Department 
provided the mandatory respondents with several notices informing them 
of the consequences of their failure to respond adequately to the 
questionnaire in this case, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, Nu-
Scaan and Yuki Gosei did not respond properly to the questionnaire. 
Similarly, although the Department provided Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi 
Pure Chemical Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., 
Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K., and Chelest Corporation with notices 
informing them of the consequences of their failure to respond 
adequately to our Q&V questionnaire, the companies in question did not 
respond to our Q&V questionnaire. This constitutes a failure on the 
part of Nu-Scaan, Yuki Gosei, Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi Pure Chemical 
Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder 
Group Companies K.K., and Chelest Corporation to cooperate to the best 
of their ability to comply with a request for information by the 
Department within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Because 
these companies did not provide the information requested, section 
782(e) of the Act is not applicable. Based on the above, the Department 
has preliminarily determined that the companies in question failed to 
cooperate to the best of their ability and, therefore, in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is 
warranted. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from 
Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total AFA 
where the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping 
questionnaire).

C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 829-
831. It is the Department's practice to use the highest calculated rate 
from the petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to 
the best of its ability to provide the necessary information and there 
are no other respondents. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 69 
FR 77216 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified 
Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). 
Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned 
to Nu-Scaan, Yuki Gosei, Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi Pure Chemical 
Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder 
Group Companies K.K., and Chelest Corporation the highest margin 
alleged in the petition, as recalculated in the Initiation Notice, of 
280.57 percent (see Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 
on Imports of Glycine from India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea 
filed on March 30, 2007 (Petition), and April 3, 12, 13, 17, and 18, 
2007, supplements to the Petition filed on behalf of Geo Specialty 
Chemicals, Inc., (the petitioner)), as recalculated in the April 19, 
2007, ``Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the 
Antidumping Duty Petition on Glycine from Japan'' (Initiation 
Checklist) on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, 
Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. We included the range of margins we 
re-calculated in the Initiation Checklist in the notice of initiation 
of this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 20819.
    When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act 
provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information 
(such as the petition) rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent 
practicable, that information from independent sources that are 
reasonably available at its disposal.
    The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. See SAA at 870. As stated in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, 
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825, 11843 
(March 13, 1997)), to corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance 
of the information used. The Department's regulations state that 
independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for 
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs 
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the 
particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and the SAA at 870.
    For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate 
information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the 
information in the \ during our pre-initiation analysis and for this 
preliminary determination. See Initiation Checklist. We examined 
evidence supporting the calculations in the Petition to determine the 
probative value of the margins alleged in the Petition for use as 
adverse facts available for purposes of this preliminary determination. 
During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the key elements of the 
export-price

[[Page 52353]]

and normal-value calculations used in the Petition to derive margins. 
During our pre-initiation analysis, we also examined the information 
from various independent sources provided either in the Petition or in 
supplements to the Petition, that corroborates key elements of the 
export-price and normal-value calculations used in the Petition to 
derive estimated margins.
    Specifically, the petitioner calculated export prices using two 
price quotes it obtained for glycine from Japan for sales to large 
customers in the United States during 2006. We obtained affidavits from 
persons who obtained the U.S. price quotes. See Initiation Checklist at 
7. The petitioner then compared the value of the U.S. price quotes with 
the average monthly Customs Unit Values (AUVs) 'F.O.B. foreign port' of 
glycine imports from Japan for consumption in the United States, 
classified under HTSUS number 2922.49.4020 for year 2006, gathered from 
the Bureau of the Census IM145 import statistics. See Initiation 
Checklist at 6-7. U.S. official import statistics are sources that we 
consider reliable. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan, 
70 FR 48538 (August 18, 2005), and applicable Memorandum to the File 
from Dmitry Vladimirov entitled ``Preliminary Determination in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Superalloy Degassed Chromium from 
Japan: Corroboration of Total Adverse Facts Available Rate,'' dated 
August 11, 2005 (Chromium from Japan) (unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed 
Chromium from Japan, 70 FR 65886 (November 1, 2005)). We confirmed that 
the AUVs were consistent with the range of values of the U.S. price 
quotes. Further, we obtained no other information that would make us 
question the reliability of the pricing information provided in the 
Petition.
    The petitioner adjusted U.S. prices for foreign inland freight, 
international freight, U.S. inland freight, distributor mark-up, and 
credit charges. The petitioner used publicly available data, such as 
PIERS Global Intelligence Services, information at 
www.freightcenter.com, data queries from USITC Interactive Tariff and 
Trade DataWeb, etc., to estimate charges for foreign inland freight, 
international freight, and U.S. inland freight. See Initiation 
Checklist at 6-7. These are sources that we consider reliable. Further, 
we obtained no other information that would make us question the 
reliability of the adjusted information provided in the Petition. In 
addition, because the petitioner reported that there were no credit 
expenses in the home market, the regulations at 19 CFR 351.410(c) do 
not require an adjustment for differences in circumstances of sale in 
the instant case. Therefore, the net U.S. prices we re-calculated in 
the Initiation Checklist excluded an adjustment for U.S. credit 
expenses. As such, it was not necessary to corroborate the petitioner's 
calculation of U.S. credit expenses. The petitioner estimated the 
distributor mark-up based on GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc.'s sales 
personnel's knowledge of distributor mark-ups in the domestic glycine 
industry. The petitioner provided an affidavit from persons attesting 
to the validity of the distributor mark-up value the petitioner used in 
the calculation of net U.S. price. See Initiation Checklist at 6-7.
    Based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we 
consider the petitioner's calculation of net U.S. prices corroborated.
    To calculate normal value, the petitioner determined domestic 
Japanese prices, obtained by an economic consultant, for USP-grade 
glycine based on price quotations obtained from Japanese glycine 
manufacturers. These price quotations identified specific terms of sale 
and payment terms. See Initiation Checklist at 7-8. The petitioner 
provided an affidavit from an economic consultant attesting to the 
validity of the value of the Japanese price quotations that the 
petitioner used in the calculation of net foreign value. See Initiation 
Checklist at 7-8. See also Memorandum to the File entitled ``Telephone 
Call to Market Research Firm Regarding the Antidumping Petition on 
Glycine from Japan,'' dated April 19, 2007. The petitioner did not 
report a home-market interest rate or a home-market credit expense. 
Thus, we did not make an adjustment to normal value for home-market 
credit expenses. The petitioner did not make any adjustments to normal 
value. Based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we 
consider the petitioner's calculation of normal value, based on price 
quotations, corroborated.
    In the Initiation Notice, we stated that the petitioner provided 
information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
certain sales of glycine in Japan were made at prices below the fully 
absorbed cost of production, within the meaning of section 773(b) of 
the Act. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 20818. As we stated in the 
Initiation Notice, based upon a comparison of price quotations for 
sales of that same grade glycine in Japan and the country-specific cost 
of production of the product, we found reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that sales of glycine in Japan were made below the cost of 
production, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. 
See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 2018. Accordingly, as we stated in the 
Initiation Notice, we initiated a country-wide cost investigation with 
regard to Japan. Id. As we stated further, because it alleged sales 
below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the 
Act, the petitioner also based normal value for Japanese sales of a 
certain grade glycine on constructed value when the home-market prices 
for a certain grade glycine used in the cost comparisons fell below the 
cost of production. Id.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, the cost of production 
consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing 
expenses. As we stated in the Initiation Notice, to calculate the COM, 
the petitioner multiplied the usage quantity of each input needed to 
produce one metric ton of glycine by the value of that input. The 
petitioner obtained all of the quantity and value data it used to 
calculate the COM from public sources. The petitioner obtained the 
input-usage factors from the public record of the 1997-1998 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the 
People's Republic of China. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 20819. The 
producer in the 1997-1998 review produced glycine by the same 
production method utilized by producers in Japan. In exhibit O of its 
April 13, 2007, supplement to the Petition, the petitioner provided a 
declaration from a chemist and a director of technology at Specialty 
Chemicals, Inc., who acknowledged that, once the particular production 
process is chosen, the consumption quantities of inputs are dictated by 
the particular steps and chemistry of the process. As such, the 
petitioner claimed, the input-consumption factors it had used in its 
cost-of-production/constructed-value build-up that were reported by a 
Chinese glycine producer in the 1997-1998 administrative review are 
equally valid as a basis for estimating the inputs needed during the 
current period of investigation and, thus, for developing an accurate 
cost of producing glycine. See April 13, 2007, supplement to the 
Petition at page 2 and exhibit O.
    The petitioner obtained the values for the inputs for the 
production of glycine from various public sources. Id. Specifically, 
the petitioner valued raw

[[Page 52354]]

materials using import statistics in the World Trade Data Atlas for the 
year 2006, exclusive of imports from non-market and heavily subsidized 
economies, which is the latest Japanese import data available. See 
Initiation Checklist at 8-9. The petitioner valued labor costs using 
year 2004 average per-hour wages for Japan using the International 
Labour Organization's Yearbook of Labour Statistics and per-capita 
gross national income obtained from the World Bank. The petitioner did 
not adjust labor data for wage inflation. See Initiation Checklist at 
9-10. The petitioner valued electricity and water consumption using 
data from page 43 of the Key World Energy Statistics 2003, published by 
the International Energy Agency. The petitioner did not adjust 
electricity data for inflation. See Initiation Checklist at 9. The 
petitioner calculated average factory overhead, SG&A, and the 
financial-expense ratios based on the current audited financial 
statements of a publically traded Japanese producer of glycine. See 
Initiation Checklist at 9-11.
    Where the petitioner used constructed value to determine normal 
value, it added an amount for profit calculated using the same 
financial statements. See Initiation Checklist at 9-11. Because the 
petitioner had demonstrated, and we confirmed, the validity of the 
input-usage quantities it used in its cost-of-production/constructed 
value build-up, used public sources of information, such as official 
import statistics that we confirmed were accurate to value inputs of 
production, and used audited current financial statements of a publicly 
traded Japanese glycine producer to compute factory overhead, SG&A, 
financial expense, and profit that we confirmed were accurate, we 
consider the petitioner's calculation of normal value based on 
constructed value corroborated. Further, we consider the petitioner's 
calculation of normal value corroborated because the bulk of 
calculations encompassed publicly available information or import 
statistics which do not require further corroboration. See, e.g., 
Chromium from Japan.
    Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of the 
information underlying the derivation of margins in the Petition by 
examining source documents as well as publically available information, 
we preliminarily determine that the margins in the Petition are 
reliable for the purposes of this investigation.
    In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of 
corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at 
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a 
margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected 
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the 
margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the 
highest margin as ``best information available'' (the predecessor to 
``facts available'') because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an unusually high 
dumping margin.
    In Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 
(CIT 2003), the court found that the adverse facts-available rate bore 
a ``rational relationship'' to the respondent's ``commercial 
practices,'' and was, therefore, relevant. In the pre-initiation stage 
of this investigation, we confirmed that the calculation of margins in 
the Petition reflects commercial practices of the particular industry 
during the period of investigation. Further, no information has been 
presented in the investigation that calls into question the relevance 
of this information. As such, we preliminarily determine that the 
highest margin in the Petition, which we determined during our pre-
initiation analysis was based on adequate and accurate information and 
which we have corroborated for purposes of this preliminary 
determination, is relevant as the adverse facts-available rate for Nu-
Scaan, Yuki Gosei, Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries 
Co. Ltd., CBC Co., Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder Group 
Companies K.K., and Chelest Corporation in this investigation.
    Similar to our position in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is 
the first proceeding involving Nu-Scaan, Yuki Gosei, Showa Denko K.K., 
Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., Ltd., Seino Logix 
Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K., and Chelest Corporation, 
there are no probative alternatives. Accordingly, by using information 
that was corroborated in the pre-initiation stage of this investigation 
and preliminarily determined to be relevant to Nu-Scaan, Yuki Gosei, 
Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., 
Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K., and 
Chelest Corporation in this investigation, we have corroborated the AFA 
rate ``to the extent practicable.'' See section 776(c) of the Act, 19 
CFR 351.308(d), and NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 
1336 (CIT 2004) (stating that, ``pursuant to the 'to the extent 
practicable' language the corroboration requirement itself is not 
mandatory when not feasible''). Therefore, we find that the estimated 
margin of 280.57 percent in the Initiation Notice has probative value. 
Consequently, in selecting AFA with respect to Nu-Scaan, Yuki Gosei, 
Showa Denko K.K., Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co. Ltd., CBC Co., 
Ltd., Seino Logix Co. Ltd., Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K., and 
Chelest Corporation, we have applied the margin rate of 280.57 percent, 
the highest estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice of 
initiation. See Initiation Notice.

All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated 
weighted-averaged dumping margins established for all exporters and 
producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis or are 
determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may 
use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate 
for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Our recent 
practice under these circumstances has been to assign, as the all-
others rate, the simple average of the margins in the petition. See 
Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From 
Argentina, Japan and Thailand, 65 FR 5520, 5527-28 (February 4, 2000); 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Canada, 64 FR 15457 (March 
31, 1999), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Italy, 64 FR 15458, 15459 
(March 31, 1999). Consistent with our practice we calculated a simple 
average of the rates in the Petition, as recalculated in the Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment VI and as listed in the Initiation Notice, and 
assigned this rate to all other manufacturers/exporters. For details of 
these calculations, see the memorandum from Dmitry Vladimirov to File 
entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation on Glycine from Japan - 
Analysis Memo for All-Others Rate,'' dated September 6, 2007.

[[Page 52355]]

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of glycine from Japan that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the margins, as indicated in 
the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until further notice. The dumping margins are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Manufacturer or Exporter                 Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nu-Scaan Nutraceuticals Co., Ltd....................              280.57
Yuki Gosei Co., Ltd.................................              280.57
Showa Denko K.K.....................................              280.57
Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co., Ltd...........              280.57
CBC Co., Ltd........................................              280.57
Seino Logix Co., Ltd................................              280.57
Estee Lauder Group Companies K.K....................              280.57
Chelest Corporation.................................              280.57
All Others..........................................              165.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. 
If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will 
determine whether the imports covered by that determination are 
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. 
industry. The deadline for the Commission's determination would be the 
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 
45 days after the date of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
30 days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs must be 
filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case 
briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing 
is made in an investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days 
after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. We will 
make our final determination within 75 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 6, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-18080 Filed 9-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S