Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 30375-30377 [2010-13070]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–963]
Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Termination of
Critical Circumstances Inquiry
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010.
SUMMARY: On March 8, 2010, the
Department of Commerce (Department)
published its preliminary affirmative
determination in the countervailing
duty investigation of certain potassium
phosphate salts from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC).1 The period of
investigation (POI) is January 1, 2008
through December 31, 2008. We invited
interested parties to comment on our
Preliminary Determination, and
received comments from the domestic
industry. We have made no changes for
the final determination. We determine
that countervailable subsidies are being
provided to producers and exporters of
certain potassium phosphate salts from
the PRC. For information on the
estimated countervailing duty rates,
please see the ‘‘Suspension of
Liquidation’’ section, below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street, and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–3148.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Case History
The following events have occurred
since the announcement of the
Preliminary Determination, which was
published in the Federal Register on
March 8, 2010. ICL Performance
Products LP and Prayon, Inc.
(Petitioners) filed a critical
circumstances allegation on April 6,
2010. Subsequently, on April 29, 2010,
the Department issued a preliminary
affirmative critical circumstances
determination. See Certain Potassium
Phosphate Salts from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Determination of Critical
1 See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment
of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with
Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 75 FR
10466 (March 8, 2010) (Preliminary Determination).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:41 May 28, 2010
Jkt 220001
30375
TKPP, also known as normal
potassium pyrophosphate, diphosphoric
acid or tetrapotassium salt, is a
potassium salt with the formula K4P2O7.
The CAS registry number for TKPP is
7320–34–5. TKPP is typically 18.7%
phosphorus and 47.3% potassium. It is
generally greater than or equal to 43.0%
P2O5 content. TKPP is classified under
heading 2835.39.1000, Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS).
MKP, also known as potassium
dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or
monobasic potassium phosphate, is a
potassium salt with the formula
KH2PO4. The CAS registry number for
MKP is 7778–77–0. MKP is typically
22.7% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium
Injury Test
and 52% P2O5. MKP is classified under
heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies
DKP, also known as dipotassium salt,
Agreement Country’’ within the meaning
dipotassium hydrogen orthophosphate
of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of
or potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a
1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC) is chemical formula of K2HPO4. The CAS
registry number for DKP is 7758–11–4.
required to determine pursuant to
DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus,
section 701(a)(2) of the Act whether
imports of the subject merchandise from 44.8% potassium and 40% P2O5
content. DKP is classified under heading
the PRC materially injure, or threaten
2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
material injury to, a United States
The products covered by this
industry. On November 23, 2009, the
investigation include the foregoing
ITC published its preliminary
phosphate salts in all grades, whether
determination that there is a reasonable
food grade or technical grade. The
indication that an industry in the
products covered by this investigation
United States producing
include anhydrous MKP and DKP
monopotassium phosphate (MKP) is
without regard to the physical form,
materially injured or threatened with
whether crushed, granule, powder or
material injury, and industries in the
fines. Also covered are all forms of
United States producing dipotassium
TKPP, whether crushed, granule,
phospate (DKP) and tetrapotassium
powder, fines or solution.
pyrophosphate (TKPP) are threatened
For purposes of the investigation, the
with material injury by reason of
narrative description is dispositive, not
allegedly subsidized imports from the
the tariff heading, American Chemical
PRC of subject merchandise. See
Society, CAS registry number or CAS
Investigations Nos. 701–TA–473 and
name, or the specific percentage
731–TA–1173 (Preliminary), Certain
Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts chemical composition identified above.
from China, 74 FR 61173 (November 23, Period of Investigation
2009). The ITC found that there is no
The period for which we are
reasonable indication that an industry
measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of
producing sodium tripolyphosphate
investigation, is January 1, 2008 through
(STPP) is materially injured by reason of December 31, 2008.
imports alleged to be subsidized by the
Comments on the Preliminary
PRC. Id.
Determination
Scope of the Investigation
As noted above, the Department
The phosphate salts covered by this
received a case brief from Petitioners
investigation include anhydrous
only, and no rebuttal briefs. Petitioners’
monopotassium phosphate (MKP),
brief simply states their agreement with
anhydrous dipotassium phospate (DKP) the Department’s preliminary AFA
and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
determination, and reiterates their
(TKPP), whether anhydrous or in
arguments for finding critical
solution (collectively ‘‘phosphate salts’’). circumstances, but does not offer any
arguments or suggestions for modifying
2 Because the critical circumstances allegation
our determinations or methodologies in
was not filed until April 6, 2010, we were not able
any manner. Moreover, Petitioners’
to issue our determination before the due date for
affirmative statements regarding critical
case briefs. We did not receive any requests to
extend the due date.
circumstances have become moot now
Circumstances in the Countervailing
Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24575, 24577
(May 5, 2010).
On April 27, 2010, we received a case
brief from Petitioners. We received no
other case briefs and no rebuttal briefs.
Petitioners’ brief simply notes its
agreement with the Department’s
preliminary countervailing duty
determination, and reiterates its
arguments in favor of an affirmative
critical circumstances determination.2
Petitioners put forth no arguments for
revisions to our adverse facts available
(AFA) methodology or to any other
aspect of our determinations. On May
18, 2010, Petitioners withdrew their
critical circumstances allegation.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM
01JNN1
30376
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices
that they have withdrawn their
allegation (see below). Therefore, given
Petitioners’ complete concurrence with
the Department’s positions, we have not
addressed their comments specifically.
Use of Facts Available and Adverse
Facts Available
For purposes of this final
determination, we relied on AFA in
accordance with sections 776(a) and (b)
of the Act to determine the total
countervailable subsidy rates. The
government of the PRC and the three
mandatory company respondents did
not respond to the Department’s
questionnaire. Because of the failure to
provide requested information, we
determine that the use of facts otherwise
available is required, pursuant to
section 776(a)(2)(C), and that, because of
this lack of cooperation, the application
of an adverse inference is also
warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of
the Act. In determining appropriate
AFA rates for the programs under
investigation, we applied the
methodology developed in prior CVD
investigations. A full discussion of our
decision to apply AFA, and the
methodology we followed, is presented
in the Preliminary Determination in the
section ‘‘Application of Facts Otherwise
Available,’’ and a detailed explanation
of the AFA rates determined for each
program can be found in Memorandum
to the File, ‘‘Application of Adverse
Facts Available Rates for Preliminary
Determination,’’ March 1, 2010. There is
no new information or more recently
calculated rates in final CVD
determinations involving the PRC
which warrant any revisions to the rates
assigned in the Preliminary
Determination.
Critical Circumstances
As noted above, Petitioners withdrew
their critical circumstances allegation
on May 18, 2010. Pursuant to this
withdrawal, and because the
Department has not ‘‘expended
significant resources’’ in examining the
allegation,3 the Department determines
there is no need to make a critical
circumstances determination in this
investigation and is terminating the
critical circumstances inquiry. We will,
therefore, instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the
suspension of liquidation, refund any
cash deposits, and release any bond or
other security previously posted, for
entries from December 8, 2009 until
March 8, 2010, the publication date of
the Preliminary Determination,
effectively rescinding our instructions to
CBP pursuant to the preliminary
affirmative critical circumstances
determination.
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
In accordance with section
705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have
assigned a subsidy rate to each of the
three producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise that were selected as
mandatory company respondents in this
CVD investigation. With respect to the
all-others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of
the Act provides that if the
countervailable subsidy rates
established for all exporters and
producers individually investigated are
determined entirely in accordance with
section 776 of the Act, the Department
may use any reasonable method to
establish an all-others rate for exporters
and producers not individually
investigated. In this case, the rate
calculated for the three investigated
companies is based entirely on facts
available under section 776 of the Act.
There is no other information on the
record upon which to determine an allothers rate. As a result, we have used
the AFA rate assigned to the three
mandatory respondents as the all-others
rate. This method is consistent with the
Department’s past practice. See, e.g.,
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16,
2001); see also, Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination:
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand
From India, 68 FR 68356 (December 8,
2003); Sodium Nitrite from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, 73
FR 38981 (July 8, 2008).
As a result, we have determined the
following subsidy rates.
Producer/Exporter
Subsidy rate
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co Ltd ...............................................
Mianyang Aostar Phosphate Chemical Industry Co. Ltd .........................
Shifang Anda Chemicals Co. Ltd .............................................................
All-Others ..................................................................................................
109.11
109.11
109.11
109.11
percent
percent
percent
percent
ad
ad
ad
ad
valorem.
valorem.
valorem.
valorem.
In accordance with section
703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we directed
CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries
of the subject merchandise from the
PRC, which are entered or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after March 8, 2010, the date of
publication of the Preliminary
Determination. After the preliminary
affirmative critical circumstances
determination, we directed CBP to
suspend liquidation of all entries on or
after December 8, 2009 (encompassing
the retroactive 90-day period) pursuant
to section 703(e)(2) of the Act. As noted
above, however, we will now instruct
CBP to remove the suspension of
liquidation for the 90-day prepreliminary determination period, to
refund any cash deposits and release
any bond or other security previously
posted within the 90-day period, but to
continue collecting bonds or cash
deposits on all entries, entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after March 8, 2010.
If the ITC issues a final affirmative
injury determination, we will issue a
countervailing duty order under section
706(a) of the Act, and instruct CBP to
require cash deposits of the estimated
countervailing duties. If the ITC
determines that material injury to, threat
of material injury to, or material
retardation of, the domestic industry
does not exist, this proceeding will be
terminated and all estimated duties
deposited or securities posted as a result
of the suspension of liquidation will be
refunded or canceled.
3 See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of
Critical-Circumstances Investigation: Electrolytic
Manganese Dioxide from Australia, 73 FR 47586,
47586–87 (August 14, 2008), granting a post-
preliminary determination request to withdraw a
critical circumstances allegation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:41 May 28, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary
information related to this investigation.
We will allow the ITC access to all
privileged and business proprietary
information in our files, provided the
ITC confirms that it will not disclose
E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM
01JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices
such information, either publicly or
under an Administrative Protective
Order (APO), without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final
negative injury determination, this
notice will serve as the only reminder
to parties subject to an APO of their
responsibility concerning the
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
This determination is issued and
published pursuant to sections 705(d)
and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: May 24, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–13070 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A–570–962]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts
from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Termination of
Critical Circumstances Inquiry
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2010.
SUMMARY: On March 16, 2010, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published its notice of
preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the
antidumping investigation of certain
potassium phosphate salts (‘‘salts’’) from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009.
We invited interested parties to
comment on our preliminary
determination of sales at LTFV. We
made no changes for the final
1 See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75
FR 12508 (March 16, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary
Determination’’).
15:41 May 28, 2010
Jkt 220001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katie Marksberry or Irene Gorelik, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–7906 or (202) 482–
6905, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Department published its
Preliminary Determination on March 16,
2010. On April 2, 2010, Petitioners filed
an allegation of critical circumstances.2
On April 15, 2010, we received a case
brief from Petitioners. We did not
receive any case or rebuttal briefs from
any other interested parties. On May 5,
2010, we published the preliminary
affirmative determination of critical
circumstances.3 On May 18, 2010,
Petitioners withdrew their allegation of
critical circumstances.4
Tolling of Administrative Deadlines
International Trade Administration
VerDate Mar<15>2010
determination. We determine that salts
from the PRC are being, or are likely to
be, sold in the United States at LTFV as
provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are
shown in the ‘‘Final Determination
Margins’’ section of this notice.
As explained in the memorandum
from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, the Department
has exercised its discretion to toll
deadlines for the duration of the closure
of the Federal Government from
February 5, through February 12, 2010.
Thus, all deadlines in this segment of
the proceeding have been extended by
seven days. The revised deadline for
this final determination is now May 24,
2010. See Memorandum to the Record
from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import
Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of
the Government Closure During the
Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12,
2010.
2 See
Letter from Petitioners to the Department;
regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Allegation of
Critical Circumstances; dated April 2, 2010.
3 See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24572 (May
5, 2010) (‘‘Prelim Critical Circumstances
Determination’’).
4 See letter to the Department from Petitioners,
regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from
the People’s Republic of China: Withdrawal of
Allegation of Critical Circumstances, dated May 18,
2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30377
Scope of Investigation
The phosphate salts covered by this
investigation include anhydrous
Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP),
anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate
(DKP) and Tetrapotassium
Pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether
anhydrous or in solution (collectively
‘‘phosphate salts’’).
TKPP, also known as normal
potassium pyrophosphate,
Diphosphoric acid or Tetrapotassium
salt, is a potassium salt with the formula
K4P2O7. The CAS registry number for
TKPP is 7320–34–5. TKPP is typically
18.7% phosphorus and 47.3%
potassium. It is generally greater than or
equal to 43.0% P2O5 content. TKPP is
classified under heading 2835.39.1000,
HTSUS.
MKP, also known as Potassium
dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or
Monobasic potassium phosphate, is a
potassium salt with the formula
KH2PO4. The CAS registry number for
MKP is 7778–77–0. MKP is typically
22.7% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium
and 52% P2O5. MKP is classified under
heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
DKP, also known as Dipotassium salt,
Dipotassium hydrogen orthophosphate
or Potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a
chemical formula of K2HPO4. The CAS
registry number for DKP is 7758–11–4.
DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus,
44.8% potassium and 40% P2O5
content. DKP is classified under heading
2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
The products covered by this
investigation include the foregoing
phosphate salts in all grades, whether
food grade or technical grade. The
product covered by this investigation
includes anhydrous MKP and DKP
without regard to the physical form,
whether crushed, granule, powder or
fines. Also covered are all forms of
TKPP, whether crushed, granule,
powder, fines or solution.
For purposes of the investigation, the
narrative description is dispositive, and
not the tariff heading, American
Chemical Society, CAS registry number
or CAS name, or the specific percentage
chemical composition identified above.
Comments on the Preliminary
Determination
On April 15, 2010, Petitioners
submitted a case brief in which they
agreed with the decisions the
Department made in the Preliminary
Determination and stated that the
Department’s use of adverse facts
available (‘‘AFA’’) in the Preliminary
Determination was warranted and
appropriate. No other interested party
commented on the Preliminary
Determination.
E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM
01JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30375-30377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13070]
[[Page 30375]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-963]
Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From the People's Republic of
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010.
SUMMARY: On March 8, 2010, the Department of Commerce (Department)
published its preliminary affirmative determination in the
countervailing duty investigation of certain potassium phosphate salts
from the People's Republic of China (PRC).\1\ The period of
investigation (POI) is January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. We
invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Determination,
and received comments from the domestic industry. We have made no
changes for the final determination. We determine that countervailable
subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain
potassium phosphate salts from the PRC. For information on the
estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty
Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 75 FR 10466
(March 8, 2010) (Preliminary Determination).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street, and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The following events have occurred since the announcement of the
Preliminary Determination, which was published in the Federal Register
on March 8, 2010. ICL Performance Products LP and Prayon, Inc.
(Petitioners) filed a critical circumstances allegation on April 6,
2010. Subsequently, on April 29, 2010, the Department issued a
preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determination. See
Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the
Countervailing Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24575, 24577 (May 5, 2010).
On April 27, 2010, we received a case brief from Petitioners. We
received no other case briefs and no rebuttal briefs. Petitioners'
brief simply notes its agreement with the Department's preliminary
countervailing duty determination, and reiterates its arguments in
favor of an affirmative critical circumstances determination.\2\
Petitioners put forth no arguments for revisions to our adverse facts
available (AFA) methodology or to any other aspect of our
determinations. On May 18, 2010, Petitioners withdrew their critical
circumstances allegation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Because the critical circumstances allegation was not filed
until April 6, 2010, we were not able to issue our determination
before the due date for case briefs. We did not receive any requests
to extend the due date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to
determine pursuant to section 701(a)(2) of the Act whether imports of
the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, a United States industry. On November 23, 2009, the
ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable
indication that an industry in the United States producing
monopotassium phosphate (MKP) is materially injured or threatened with
material injury, and industries in the United States producing
dipotassium phospate (DKP) and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (TKPP) are
threatened with material injury by reason of allegedly subsidized
imports from the PRC of subject merchandise. See Investigations Nos.
701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 (Preliminary), Certain Sodium and Potassium
Phosphate Salts from China, 74 FR 61173 (November 23, 2009). The ITC
found that there is no reasonable indication that an industry producing
sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) is materially injured by reason of
imports alleged to be subsidized by the PRC. Id.
Scope of the Investigation
The phosphate salts covered by this investigation include anhydrous
monopotassium phosphate (MKP), anhydrous dipotassium phospate (DKP) and
tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether anhydrous or in solution
(collectively ``phosphate salts'').
TKPP, also known as normal potassium pyrophosphate, diphosphoric
acid or tetrapotassium salt, is a potassium salt with the formula
K4P2O7. The CAS registry number for
TKPP is 7320-34-5. TKPP is typically 18.7% phosphorus and 47.3%
potassium. It is generally greater than or equal to 43.0%
P2O5 content. TKPP is classified under heading
2835.39.1000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
MKP, also known as potassium dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or
monobasic potassium phosphate, is a potassium salt with the formula
KH2PO4. The CAS registry number for MKP is 7778-
77-0. MKP is typically 22.7% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium and 52%
P2O5. MKP is classified under heading
2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
DKP, also known as dipotassium salt, dipotassium hydrogen
orthophosphate or potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a chemical formula
of K2HPO4. The CAS registry number for DKP is
7758-11-4. DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus, 44.8% potassium and 40%
P2O5 content. DKP is classified under heading
2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
The products covered by this investigation include the foregoing
phosphate salts in all grades, whether food grade or technical grade.
The products covered by this investigation include anhydrous MKP and
DKP without regard to the physical form, whether crushed, granule,
powder or fines. Also covered are all forms of TKPP, whether crushed,
granule, powder, fines or solution.
For purposes of the investigation, the narrative description is
dispositive, not the tariff heading, American Chemical Society, CAS
registry number or CAS name, or the specific percentage chemical
composition identified above.
Period of Investigation
The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the period
of investigation, is January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008.
Comments on the Preliminary Determination
As noted above, the Department received a case brief from
Petitioners only, and no rebuttal briefs. Petitioners' brief simply
states their agreement with the Department's preliminary AFA
determination, and reiterates their arguments for finding critical
circumstances, but does not offer any arguments or suggestions for
modifying our determinations or methodologies in any manner. Moreover,
Petitioners' affirmative statements regarding critical circumstances
have become moot now
[[Page 30376]]
that they have withdrawn their allegation (see below). Therefore, given
Petitioners' complete concurrence with the Department's positions, we
have not addressed their comments specifically.
Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available
For purposes of this final determination, we relied on AFA in
accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act to determine the
total countervailable subsidy rates. The government of the PRC and the
three mandatory company respondents did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire. Because of the failure to provide requested information,
we determine that the use of facts otherwise available is required,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C), and that, because of this lack of
cooperation, the application of an adverse inference is also warranted,
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. In determining appropriate AFA
rates for the programs under investigation, we applied the methodology
developed in prior CVD investigations. A full discussion of our
decision to apply AFA, and the methodology we followed, is presented in
the Preliminary Determination in the section ``Application of Facts
Otherwise Available,'' and a detailed explanation of the AFA rates
determined for each program can be found in Memorandum to the File,
``Application of Adverse Facts Available Rates for Preliminary
Determination,'' March 1, 2010. There is no new information or more
recently calculated rates in final CVD determinations involving the PRC
which warrant any revisions to the rates assigned in the Preliminary
Determination.
Critical Circumstances
As noted above, Petitioners withdrew their critical circumstances
allegation on May 18, 2010. Pursuant to this withdrawal, and because
the Department has not ``expended significant resources'' in examining
the allegation,\3\ the Department determines there is no need to make a
critical circumstances determination in this investigation and is
terminating the critical circumstances inquiry. We will, therefore,
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the
suspension of liquidation, refund any cash deposits, and release any
bond or other security previously posted, for entries from December 8,
2009 until March 8, 2010, the publication date of the Preliminary
Determination, effectively rescinding our instructions to CBP pursuant
to the preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical-Circumstances
Investigation: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia, 73 FR
47586, 47586-87 (August 14, 2008), granting a post-preliminary
determination request to withdraw a critical circumstances
allegation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have
assigned a subsidy rate to each of the three producers/exporters of the
subject merchandise that were selected as mandatory company respondents
in this CVD investigation. With respect to the all-others rate, section
705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if the countervailable
subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually
investigated are determined entirely in accordance with section 776 of
the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an
all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually
investigated. In this case, the rate calculated for the three
investigated companies is based entirely on facts available under
section 776 of the Act. There is no other information on the record
upon which to determine an all-others rate. As a result, we have used
the AFA rate assigned to the three mandatory respondents as the all-
others rate. This method is consistent with the Department's past
practice. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16, 2001); see also, Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Prestressed Concrete
Steel Wire Strand From India, 68 FR 68356 (December 8, 2003); Sodium
Nitrite from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 38981 (July 8, 2008).
As a result, we have determined the following subsidy rates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/Exporter Subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co Ltd. 109.11 percent ad valorem.
Mianyang Aostar Phosphate Chemical 109.11 percent ad valorem.
Industry Co. Ltd.
Shifang Anda Chemicals Co. Ltd......... 109.11 percent ad valorem.
All-Others............................. 109.11 percent ad valorem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we directed
CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise
from the PRC, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after March 8, 2010, the date of publication of the
Preliminary Determination. After the preliminary affirmative critical
circumstances determination, we directed CBP to suspend liquidation of
all entries on or after December 8, 2009 (encompassing the retroactive
90-day period) pursuant to section 703(e)(2) of the Act. As noted
above, however, we will now instruct CBP to remove the suspension of
liquidation for the 90-day pre-preliminary determination period, to
refund any cash deposits and release any bond or other security
previously posted within the 90-day period, but to continue collecting
bonds or cash deposits on all entries, entered or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after March 8, 2010.
If the ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will
issue a countervailing duty order under section 706(a) of the Act, and
instruct CBP to require cash deposits of the estimated countervailing
duties. If the ITC determines that material injury to, threat of
material injury to, or material retardation of, the domestic industry
does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated
duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of
liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC
confirms that it will not disclose
[[Page 30377]]
such information, either publicly or under an Administrative Protective
Order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties
subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: May 24, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-13070 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
