Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Japan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 58997-59001 [2013-23389]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
CPZ II, the Court held that the
Department acted unlawfully by using
an adverse inference in re-determining
CPZ’s dumping margin, and acted
unlawfully by failing to recalculate the
SVs. The Court ordered the Department
to: 1) Determine the U.S. price for CPZ’s
sales of subject merchandise according
to a lawful method; and 2) review,
reconsider, and re-determine the SVs.
In response to CPZ II, the Department
issued the CPZ II Remand
Redetermination on October 2, 2012. In
the CPZ II Remand Redetermination, the
Department: 1) Applied non-AFA by
calculating CPZ’s margin utilizing the
CEP U.S. price methodology based on
sales information available on the
record of the underlying review; and 2)
re-determined the SVs based on
alternative SV information on the
record.
On August 31, 2013, the Court
sustained the CPZ II Remand
Redetermination, holding that: 1) There
was no error in the Department’s
decision to use the record CEP data
instead of entered value data to
determine the U.S. prices of CPZ’s
subject merchandise, as had been
argued during the remand proceeding;
and 2) the re-determined SVs comply
with the remand order issued in CPZ I.3
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, as clarified
by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held
that, pursuant to section 516A(c) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), the Department must publish a
notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in
harmony’’ with a Department
determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s
August 30, 2013, judgment in this case
constitutes a final decision of that court
that is not in harmony with the
Department’s final results of the
administrative review. This notice is
published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
Accordingly, the Department will
continue the suspension of liquidation
of the subject merchandise pending
expiration of the period of appeal or, if
appealed, pending a final and
conclusive court decision. The cash
deposit rate will remain the companyspecific rate established for the most
recently completed segment of this
proceeding in which the respondent
was included.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to this case, the
3 See
CPZ III, Slip Op. 13–116 at 5–9.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
58997
Department is amending its Final
Results with respect to CPZ’s weightedaverage dumping margin for the period
June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007. The
revised weighted-average dumping
margin is as follows:
Chemical Corporation (‘‘Petitioners’’).1
Petitioners are domestic producers of
chlorinated isos. On September 4, 2013,
Petitioners provided a supplement to
the foreign market research report
provided in the Petition.2 The
Department requested additional
information and clarification of certain
TRBS FROM THE PRC
areas of the Petition on September 4,
Weighted2013 and September 5, 2013.3
average
Petitioners filed their response to these
Exporter
margin
requests on September 9, 2013.4
(percent)
Petitioners also submitted additional
information regarding the foreign
Peer Bearing Company—
Changshan (CPZ) .............
6.25 market research report on September 9,
2013.5 On September 10, 2013,
Department officials held a telephone
In the event that the CIT’s ruling is
conference call with the source of the
not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by
home market pricing information to
the CAFC, the Department will instruct
Customs and Border Protection to assess confirm the information provided.6
Additionally, on September 10, 2013,
antidumping duties on entries of the
Department officials held a telephone
subject merchandise exported by CPZ
conference call with Petitioners
during the POR.
This notice is issued and published in regarding the Supplement to the AD/
CVD Petitions.7 On September 10, 2013,
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
Petitioners resubmitted Exhibit AD–26
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
of the Petition.8
Dated: September 18, 2013.
In accordance with section 732(b) of
Paul Piquado,
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Assistant Secretary for Import
‘‘Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of
Administration.
chlorinated isos from Japan are being, or
[FR Doc. 2013–23390 Filed 9–24–13; 8:45 am]
are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value within the
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
meaning of section 731 of the Act and
that such imports are materially
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, an industry in the United States.
International Trade Administration
Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1)
of the Act, the Petition is accompanied
[A–588–870]
by information reasonably available to
Petitioners supporting their allegations.
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From
The Department finds that Petitioners
Japan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
filed this Petition on behalf of the
Investigation
domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in section
AGENCY: Import Administration,
771(9)(C) of the Act and have
International Trade Administration,
demonstrated sufficient industry
Department of Commerce.
support with respect to the initiation of
DATES: Effective Date: September 25,
the AD investigation that they are
2013.
requesting. See the ‘‘Determination of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia
1 See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Hancock or Jerry Huang at (202) 482–
Duties on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Japan,
1394 or (202) 482–4047, respectively,
dated August 29, 2013 (‘‘Petition’’).
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
2 See First Supplement to the AD Petition, dated
Administration, International Trade
September 4, 2013 (‘‘First Supplement’’).
3 See Department’s General Supplemental
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Questionnaire issued on September 4, 2013 and
Department’s AD/CVD Supplemental Questionnaire
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
issued on September 5, 2013.
4 See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On August 29, 2013, the Department
of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’)
received an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’)
petition concerning imports of
chlorinated isocyanurates (‘‘chlorinated
isos’’) from Japan, filed in proper form
by Clearon Corp. and Occidental
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
September 9, 2013 (‘‘Supplement to the AD/CVD
Petitions’’).
5 See Second Supplement to the AD Petition,
dated September 9, 2013 (‘‘Second Supplement’’).
6 See Memorandum to the File from Julia
Hancock, dated September 11, 2013.
7 See Memorandum to the File from Jerry Huang,
dated September 11, 2013.
8 See Amended Supplement to the AD Petition,
dated September 10, 2013 (‘‘Amended
Supplement’’).
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
58998
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Notices
prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determination. All comments must be
filed on the record of the Japan AD
investigation, as well as the concurrent
PRC countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’)
investigation.
Industry Support for the Petition’’
section below.
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on
August 29, 2013, the period of
investigation (‘‘POI’’) is July 1, 2012,
through June 30, 2013.9
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this
investigation is chlorinated isos from
Japan. For a full description of the scope
of the investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of
the Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we
discussed the scope with Petitioners to
ensure that it is an accurate reflection of
the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the
regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage. The Department encourages
all interested parties to submit such
comments by October 8, 2013, 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time, 20 calendar
days from the signature date of this
notice. All comments and submissions
to the Department must be filed
electronically using Import
Administration’s Antidumping
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’).10 An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by the time and date noted above.
Documents excepted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed
manually (i.e., in paper form) with
Import Administration’s APO/Dockets
Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230,
and stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the deadline noted above.
The period for scope comments is
intended to provide the Department
with ample opportunity to consider all
comments and to consult with parties
9 See
19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department’s
electronic filing requirements, which went into
effect on August 5, 2011. Information on using
IAACCESS can be found at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can
be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/
Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20
Procedures.pdf.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Comments on Product Characteristics
for Antidumping Duty Questionnaire
The Department requests comments
from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of
chlorinated isos to be reported in
response to the Department’s AD
questionnaire. This information will be
used to identify the key physical
characteristics of the subject
merchandise in order to develop
appropriate product-comparison criteria
and to allow respondent to report the
relevant costs of production, if
necessary.
Interested parties may provide any
information or comments that they feel
are relevant to the development of an
accurate list of physical characteristics.
Specifically, they may provide
comments as to which characteristics
are appropriate to use as (1) general
product characteristics and (2) the
product-comparison criteria. We find
that it is not always appropriate to use
all product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products.
In other words, while there may be
some physical product characteristics
utilized by manufacturers to describe
chlorinated isos, it may be that only a
select few product characteristics take
into account commercially meaningful
physical characteristics. In addition,
interested parties may comment on the
order in which the physical
characteristics should be used in
matching products. Generally, the
Department attempts to list the most
important physical characteristics first
and the least important characteristics
last.
In order to consider the suggestions of
interested parties in developing and
issuing the AD questionnaire, we must
receive comments filed in accordance
with the Department’s electronic filing
requirements, available at 19 CFR
351.303, by October 8, 2013. Rebuttal
comments must be received by October
14, 2013.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 a statistically
valid sampling method to poll the
industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole 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 U.S.
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,11 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.12
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, Petitioners do not offer a
definition of domestic like product
11 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
12 See
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that
chlorinated isos, as defined in the scope
of the investigation, constitute a single
domestic like product and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of
that domestic like product.13
In determining whether Petitioners
have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
the Petition with reference to the
domestic like product as defined in the
‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section above.
To establish industry support,
Petitioners provided their production of
the domestic like product in 2012, and
compared this to the estimated total
production of the domestic like product
for the entire domestic industry.14
Petitioners estimated total 2012
production of the domestic like product
using their own production data and
knowledge of the industry.15 We have
relied upon data Petitioners provided
for purposes of measuring industry
support.16
Based on information provided in the
Petition, supplemental submissions, and
other information readily available to
the Department, we determine that
Petitioners have met the statutory
criteria for industry support under
section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.17 Based on information
provided in the Petition, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for 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.18 Accordingly, the
Department determines that the Petition
13 See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Japan
(‘‘Initiation Checklist’’), at Attachment II, Analysis
of Industry Support for the Petitions Covering
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Japan and the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘Attachment II’’). This
checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and
on file electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to
documents filed via IA ACCESS is also available in
the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 7046 of
the main Department of Commerce building.
14 See Volume I of the Petition, at 3–4 and
Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibits GEN–9 and
GEN–12.
15 Id.
16 See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
17 Id.
18 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section
732(b)(1) of the Act.19
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the AD
investigation that they are requesting
the Department initiate.20
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product is being materially injured, or is
threatened with material injury, by
reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal
value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.21
Petitioners contend that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share; underselling and
price depression or suppression; lost
sales and revenues; decline in
production, shipments, and capacity
utilization; reduced employment-related
variables; and decline in financial
performance.22 We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury, threat of
material injury, and causation, and we
have determined that these allegations
are properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.23
Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair
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 of
imports of chlorinated isos from Japan.
The sources of data for the deductions
and adjustments relating to U.S. price
and NV are discussed in greater detail
in the Initiation Checklist.
Export Price
Petitioners calculated export price
(‘‘EP’’) using competitive sales
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 See Volume I of the Petition, at 112–113 and
Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD–2.
22 See Volume I of the Petition, at 96–132,
Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibits GEN–2 and
GEN–9 through GEN–17, and Volume III of the
Petition, at Exhibit AD–2.
23 See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Petitions Covering
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Japan and the
People’s Republic of China.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58999
information obtained in the market
through customer negotiations, which
are supported by affidavits.24
Petitioners made adjustments for cost,
insurance, and freight (‘‘CIF’’) charges
and import duties reported by the U.S.
Census Bureau (‘‘Census’’) to calculate
the ex-factory price. The CIF and import
duty charges were estimated to equal
the difference between the landed cost
value and customs value reported in
Census statistics.25
Petitioners also submitted import
statistics to corroborate the transaction
prices reported in the Petition.
Petitioners based average unit value
(‘‘AUV’’) on import statistics compiled
by Census for U.S. imports from Japan
during the POI under subheading
2933.69.6015. Petitioners stated that
because the AUV represents the free-onboard origin value of the imported
merchandise, no adjustments were
made to this value for purposes of
comparing AUV data with ex-factory
prices based on competitive sales data.26
Normal Value
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act, Petitioners based NV on prices
in Japan for sales of chlorinated isos in
various forms in 2013, which were
obtained by an independent market
research organization.27 As these prices
were offered in Japanese yen, Petitioners
converted the prices to U.S. dollars so
that U.S. price and NV were compared
on the same basis.28
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by
Petitioners, there is reason to believe
that imports of chlorinated isos from
24 See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit GEN–
12, Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD–3, and
Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at Exhibits
AD–18–AD–20.
25 See Volume I of the Petition, at 21, and Volume
III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD–2.
26 See Volume I of the Petition, at 19, and Volume
III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD–2.
27 See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit
AD–4, First Supplement, Second Supplement, and
Memorandum to the File from Julia Hancock and
Jerry Huang, International Trade Compliance
Analysts, AD/CVD Operations Office 9, through
Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations Office 9, entitled ‘‘Telephone Call to
Market Research Firm,’’ dated September 11, 2013
(‘‘Market Research Memo’’).
28 See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at
Exhibit AD–26. Petitioners also provided
constructed value data and calculated margins
based on a comparison between U.S. export prices
and constructed value. See Volume I of the Petition,
at 23–29, and Volume III of the Petition at Exhibits
AD–5–AD–16, Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions
at 6–13 and Exhibits AD–21–AD–26, and Amended
Supplement. Because Petitioners provided
appropriate home market prices, we have relied on
these prices as the basis for normal value, pursuant
to section 773(a)(1) of the Act, for purposes of
initiation.
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
59000
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Notices
Japan are being, or are likely to be, sold
in the United States at less than fair
value. Based on comparisons of EP to
NVs, in accordance with section
773(a)(1) of the Act, the estimated
dumping margins for chlorinated isos
from Japan range from 129.4 percent to
218.1 percent.29
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon the examination of the
Petition on chlorinated isos from Japan,
we find that the Petition meets the
requirements of section 732 of the Act.
Therefore, we are initiating the AD
investigation to determine whether
imports of chlorinated isos from Japan
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value. In
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination no later than
140 days after the date of this initiation.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Respondent Selection
The Petition names eleven companies
as producers of chlorinated isos from
Japan.30 Following standard practice in
AD investigations involving market
economy countries, in the event the
Department determines that the number
of known exporters or producers for this
investigation is large, the Department
may select respondents based on U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
data for U.S. imports of chlorinated isos
from Japan under subheadings
2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021,
2933.69.6050, 3808.50.4000,
3808.94.5000, and 3808.99.9500 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States. We intend to release the
CBP data under Administrative
Protective Order (‘‘APO’’) to all parties
with access to information protected by
APO within five days of publication of
this Federal Register notice and make
our decision regarding respondent
selection within 20 days of publication
of this notice. The Department invites
comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection within seven days
of publication of this Federal Register
notice.31
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), the Government of Japan was
provided access to a copy of the public
version of the Petition via IA ACCESS.
29 See
Amended Supplement, at Exhibit AD–26.
30 See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit
AD–1.
31 See Bottom Mount Combination RefrigeratorFreezers From the Republic of Korea and Mexico:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76
FR 23281, 23285 (April 26, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
To the extent practicable, we will
attempt to provide a copy of the public
version of the Petition to each exporter
named in the Petition, as provided
under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine
no later than October 15, 2013, whether
there is a reasonable indication that
imports of chlorinated isos from Japan
are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, a U.S. industry. A
negative ITC determination will result
in the investigation being terminated;
otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department
published Definition of Factual
Information and Time Limits for
Submission of Factual Information:
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10,
2013), which modified two regulations
related to AD and CVD proceedings: The
definition of factual information (19
CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits
for the submission of factual
information (19 CFR 351.301). The final
rule identifies five categories of factual
information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21),
which are summarized as follows: (i)
Evidence submitted in response to
questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted
in support of allegations; (iii) publicly
available information to value factors
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure
the adequacy of remuneration under 19
CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed
on the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). The final rule
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted and, if the information is
submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on
the record that the factual information
seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The
final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301
so that, rather than providing general
time limits, there are specific time limits
based on the type of factual information
being submitted. These modifications
are effective for all proceeding segments
initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and
thus are applicable to this investigation.
Please review the final rule, available at
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/
2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting
factual information in this investigation.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate
in this investigation should ensure that
they meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.32
Parties are hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials as
well as their representatives.
Investigations initiated on the basis of
petitions filed on or after August 16,
2013, and other segments of any AD or
CVD proceedings initiated on or after
August 16, 2013, should use the formats
for the revised certifications provided at
the end of the Final Rule.33 The
Department intends to reject factual
submissions in any proceeding
segments if the submitting party does
not comply with applicable revised
certification requirements.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 18, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are chlorinated
isocyanurates. Chlorinated
isocyanurates are derivatives of
cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated
s-triazine triones. There are three
primary chemical compositions of
chlorinated isocyanurates: (1)
Trichloroisocyanuric acid (‘‘TCCA’’)
(Cl3(NCO)3), (2) sodium
dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate)
(NaCl2(NCO)3 X 2H2O), and (3) sodium
32 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
Certification of Factual Information To
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’); see also the frequently
asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available
athttps://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_
final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
33 See
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Notices
dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous)
(NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated
isocyanurates are available in powder,
granular and solid (e.g., tablet or stick)
forms.
Chlorinated isocyanurates are
currently classifiable under subheadings
2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021,
2933.69.6050, 3808.50.4000,
3808.94.5000, and 3808.99.9500 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). The tariff
classification 2933.69.6015 covers
sodium dichloroisocyanurates
(anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and
trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff
classifications 2933.69.6021 and
2933.69.6050 represent basket categories
that include chlorinated isocyanurates
and other compounds including an
unfused triazine ring. The tariff
classifications 3808.50.4000,
3808.94.5000 and 3808.99.9500 cover
disinfectants that include chlorinated
isocyanurates. The HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written
description of the scope of the
investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2013–23389 Filed 9–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–991]
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation
of Countervailing Duty Investigation
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: September 25,
2013.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Renkey or Paul Walker, AD/
CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: 202.482.2312 or
202.482.0413, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Petition
On August 29, 2013, the Department
of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’)
received a countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’)
petition concerning imports of
chlorinated isocyanurates (‘‘chlorinated
isos’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’), filed in proper form by
Clearon Corp. and Occidental Chemical
Corporation (‘‘Petitioners’’), domestic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
producers of chlorinated isos. The CVD
petition was accompanied by an
antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition
concerning imports of chlorinated isos
from Japan.1 On September 4 and 5,
2013, the Department issued additional
requests for information and
clarification of certain areas of the
Petition. Based on the Department’s
requests, Petitioners timely filed
additional information pertaining to the
Petition on September 9, 2013.2
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the ‘‘Act’’), Petitioners allege that
producers/exporters of chlorinated isos
in the PRC received countervailable
subsidies within the meaning of
sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, and
that imports from these producers/
exporters materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, an industry in the
United States.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed this Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because it is an
interested party as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act, and Petitioners
have demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the CVD
investigation that it is requesting the
Department to initiate (see
‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition’’ below).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
1/1/12—12/31/12, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are chlorinated isos from
the PRC. For a full description of the
scope of the investigation, please see the
‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ in the
appendix to this notice.
Comments on the Scope of the
Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we
solicited information from Petitioners to
ensure that the proposed scope language
is an accurate reflection of the products
for which the domestic industry is
seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in
the preamble to the Department’s
regulations,3 we are setting aside a
period for interested parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage. The
Department encourages all interested
1 See
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Japan and
Countervailing Duties on Chlorinated Isocyanurates
from the People’s Republic of China, dated August
29, 2013 (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Petition’’).
2 See Petitioners’ September 9, 2013 response.
3 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59001
parties to submit such comments by
October 8, 2013, which is 20 calendar
days from the signature date of this
notice. All comments must be filed on
the record of the PRC CVD investigation,
as well as the concurrent Japan AD
investigation.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Import Administration’s Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by the time and date set by the
Department. Documents excepted from
the electronic submission requirements
must be filed manually (i.e., in paper
form) with the Import Administration’s
APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped
with the date and time of receipt by the
deadline established by the
Department.4
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of
the Act, the Department held
consultations with the government of
the PRC (hereinafter, the ‘‘GOC’’) with
respect to the Petition on September 12,
2013.5
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that 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 702(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,
4 Information on help using IA ACCESS can be
found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a
handbook can be found at https://iaaccess.trade.
gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filing
%20Procedures.pdf.
5 See ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s
Republic of China: Consultations with the
Government of the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated September 12, 2013.
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58997-59001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23389]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-870]
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Japan: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: September 25, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock or Jerry Huang at (202)
482-1394 or (202) 482-4047, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On August 29, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'')
received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition concerning imports of
chlorinated isocyanurates (``chlorinated isos'') from Japan, filed in
proper form by Clearon Corp. and Occidental Chemical Corporation
(``Petitioners'').\1\ Petitioners are domestic producers of chlorinated
isos. On September 4, 2013, Petitioners provided a supplement to the
foreign market research report provided in the Petition.\2\ The
Department requested additional information and clarification of
certain areas of the Petition on September 4, 2013 and September 5,
2013.\3\ Petitioners filed their response to these requests on
September 9, 2013.\4\ Petitioners also submitted additional information
regarding the foreign market research report on September 9, 2013.\5\
On September 10, 2013, Department officials held a telephone conference
call with the source of the home market pricing information to confirm
the information provided.\6\ Additionally, on September 10, 2013,
Department officials held a telephone conference call with Petitioners
regarding the Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions.\7\ On September 10,
2013, Petitioners resubmitted Exhibit AD-26 of the Petition.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Japan, dated August 29, 2013
(``Petition'').
\2\ See First Supplement to the AD Petition, dated September 4,
2013 (``First Supplement'').
\3\ See Department's General Supplemental Questionnaire issued
on September 4, 2013 and Department's AD/CVD Supplemental
Questionnaire issued on September 5, 2013.
\4\ See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated September 9,
2013 (``Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions'').
\5\ See Second Supplement to the AD Petition, dated September 9,
2013 (``Second Supplement'').
\6\ See Memorandum to the File from Julia Hancock, dated
September 11, 2013.
\7\ See Memorandum to the File from Jerry Huang, dated September
11, 2013.
\8\ See Amended Supplement to the AD Petition, dated September
10, 2013 (``Amended Supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ``Act''), Petitioners allege that imports of chlorinated
isos from Japan 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 threatening
material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent
with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by
information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their
allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed this Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation
that they are requesting. See the ``Determination of
[[Page 58998]]
Industry Support for the Petition'' section below.
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on August 29, 2013, the period of
investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is chlorinated isos from
Japan. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see
the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)),
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by October 8, 2013, 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time, 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.
All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed
electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping Countervailing
Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS'').\10\ An
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by
the time and date noted above. Documents excepted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form)
with Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by
the deadline noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect
on August 5, 2011. Information on using IAACCESS can be found at
https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at
https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The period for scope comments is intended to provide the Department
with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. All
comments must be filed on the record of the Japan AD investigation, as
well as the concurrent PRC countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation.
Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaire
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding
the appropriate physical characteristics of chlorinated isos to be
reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaire. This
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics
of the subject merchandise in order to develop appropriate product-
comparison criteria and to allow respondent to report the relevant
costs of production, if necessary.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as (1) general product
characteristics and (2) the product-comparison criteria. We find that
it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as
product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on
meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while
there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by
manufacturers to describe chlorinated isos, it may be that only a
select few product characteristics take into account commercially
meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties
may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should
be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to
list the most important physical characteristics first and the least
important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, we must receive comments
filed in accordance with the Department's electronic filing
requirements, available at 19 CFR 351.303, by October 8, 2013. Rebuttal
comments must be received by October 14, 2013.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that 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 a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole 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 U.S. 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,\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\12\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Petitioners do not offer
a definition of domestic like product
[[Page 58999]]
distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the record, we have determined that
chlorinated isos, as defined in the scope of the investigation,
constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like product.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Japan (``Initiation Checklist''), at
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Petitions
Covering Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Japan and the People's
Republic of China (``Attachment II''). This checklist is dated
concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via IA
ACCESS. Access to documents filed via IA ACCESS is also available in
the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Room 7046 of the main Department
of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above. To
establish industry support, Petitioners provided their production of
the domestic like product in 2012, and compared this to the estimated
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\14\ Petitioners estimated total 2012 production of the
domestic like product using their own production data and knowledge of
the industry.\15\ We have relied upon data Petitioners provided for
purposes of measuring industry support.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 3-4 and Volume II of the
Petition, at Exhibits GEN-9 and GEN-12.
\15\ Id.
\16\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department,
we determine that Petitioners have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at
least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like
product.\17\ Based on information provided in the Petition, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for
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.\18\ Accordingly, the Department determines
that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the AD investigation that they are
requesting the Department initiate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise
sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 112-113 and Volume III of
the Petition, at Exhibit AD-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression
or suppression; lost sales and revenues; decline in production,
shipments, and capacity utilization; reduced employment-related
variables; and decline in financial performance.\22\ We have assessed
the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury,
threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that
these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet
the statutory requirements for initiation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 96-132, Volume II of the
Petition, at Exhibits GEN-2 and GEN-9 through GEN-17, and Volume III
of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-2.
\23\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Petitions Covering Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Japan and the
People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair 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 of imports of chlorinated isos from Japan.
The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S.
price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Initiation
Checklist.
Export Price
Petitioners calculated export price (``EP'') using competitive
sales information obtained in the market through customer negotiations,
which are supported by affidavits.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit GEN-12, Volume
III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-3, and Supplement to the AD/CVD
Petitions, at Exhibits AD-18-AD-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners made adjustments for cost, insurance, and freight
(``CIF'') charges and import duties reported by the U.S. Census Bureau
(``Census'') to calculate the ex-factory price. The CIF and import duty
charges were estimated to equal the difference between the landed cost
value and customs value reported in Census statistics.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 21, and Volume III of the
Petition, at Exhibit AD-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners also submitted import statistics to corroborate the
transaction prices reported in the Petition. Petitioners based average
unit value (``AUV'') on import statistics compiled by Census for U.S.
imports from Japan during the POI under subheading 2933.69.6015.
Petitioners stated that because the AUV represents the free-on-board
origin value of the imported merchandise, no adjustments were made to
this value for purposes of comparing AUV data with ex-factory prices
based on competitive sales data.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 19, and Volume III of the
Petition, at Exhibit AD-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, Petitioners based
NV on prices in Japan for sales of chlorinated isos in various forms in
2013, which were obtained by an independent market research
organization.\27\ As these prices were offered in Japanese yen,
Petitioners converted the prices to U.S. dollars so that U.S. price and
NV were compared on the same basis.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-4, First
Supplement, Second Supplement, and Memorandum to the File from Julia
Hancock and Jerry Huang, International Trade Compliance Analysts,
AD/CVD Operations Office 9, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations Office 9, entitled ``Telephone Call to
Market Research Firm,'' dated September 11, 2013 (``Market Research
Memo'').
\28\ See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at Exhibit AD-26.
Petitioners also provided constructed value data and calculated
margins based on a comparison between U.S. export prices and
constructed value. See Volume I of the Petition, at 23-29, and
Volume III of the Petition at Exhibits AD-5-AD-16, Supplement to the
AD/CVD Petitions at 6-13 and Exhibits AD-21-AD-26, and Amended
Supplement. Because Petitioners provided appropriate home market
prices, we have relied on these prices as the basis for normal
value, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act, for purposes of
initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of chlorinated isos from
[[Page 59000]]
Japan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less
than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NVs, in accordance with
section 773(a)(1) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for
chlorinated isos from Japan range from 129.4 percent to 218.1
percent.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Amended Supplement, at Exhibit AD-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon the examination of the Petition on chlorinated isos from
Japan, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732
of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating the AD investigation to
determine whether imports of chlorinated isos from Japan are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
Respondent Selection
The Petition names eleven companies as producers of chlorinated
isos from Japan.\30\ Following standard practice in AD investigations
involving market economy countries, in the event the Department
determines that the number of known exporters or producers for this
investigation is large, the Department may select respondents based on
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S. imports of
chlorinated isos from Japan under subheadings 2933.69.6015,
2933.69.6021, 2933.69.6050, 3808.50.4000, 3808.94.5000, and
3808.99.9500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. We
intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order
(``APO'') to all parties with access to information protected by APO
within five days of publication of this Federal Register notice and
make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of
publication of this notice. The Department invites comments regarding
the CBP data and respondent selection within seven days of publication
of this Federal Register notice.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-1.
\31\ See Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From the
Republic of Korea and Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 76 FR 23281, 23285 (April 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), the Government of Japan was provided access to a copy of
the public version of the Petition via IA ACCESS. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of
the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than October 15,
2013, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of
chlorinated isos from Japan are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will
result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this
investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time
limits.
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information:
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two
regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: The definition of
factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for
the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule
identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted
in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of
allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration
under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the
Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described
in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual
information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)
the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted
to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already
on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or
correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather
than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits
based on the type of factual information being submitted. These
modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or
after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to this investigation.
Please review the final rule, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in
this investigation.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the
filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\32\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials as well as their
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final
Rule.\33\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any
proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with
applicable revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\33\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (``Final Rule''); see also
the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available
athttps://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: September 18, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are chlorinated
isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric
acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three
primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates: (1)
Trichloroisocyanuric acid (``TCCA'') (Cl3(NCO)3),
(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate)
(NaCl2(NCO)3 X 2H2O), and (3) sodium
[[Page 59001]]
dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3).
Chlorinated isocyanurates are available in powder, granular and solid
(e.g., tablet or stick) forms.
Chlorinated isocyanurates are currently classifiable under
subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 2933.69.6050, 3808.50.4000,
3808.94.5000, and 3808.99.9500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (``HTSUS''). The tariff classification 2933.69.6015
covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and
trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and
2933.69.6050 represent basket categories that include chlorinated
isocyanurates and other compounds including an unfused triazine ring.
The tariff classifications 3808.50.4000, 3808.94.5000 and 3808.99.9500
cover disinfectants that include chlorinated isocyanurates. The HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The
written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2013-23389 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
