Sulfanilic Acid From India and the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders, 1321-1322 [2016-31993]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2017 / Notices
Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181
inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000
psi minimum for thicknesses ≤ 0.148 inches
and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses >
0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi
minimum.
Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phasehardened, primarily with a ferriticmartensitic microstructure, contains 0.9
percent up to and including 1.5 percent
silicon by weight, further characterized by
either (i) tensile strength between 540 N/mm2
and 640 N/mm2 and an elongation
percentage ≥ 26 percent for thicknesses of 2
mm and above, or (ii) a tensile strength
between 590 N/mm2 and 690 N/mm2 and an
elongation percentage ≥ 25 percent for
thicknesses of 2mm and above.
Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade
1050, in coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0
maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, with
excellent surface quality and chemistry
restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent
maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent
maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum
residuals including 0.15 percent maximum
chromium.
Grade ASTM A570–50 hot-rolled steel
sheet in coils or cut lengths, width of 74
inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances),
thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inches nominal),
mill edge and skin passed, with a minimum
copper content of 0.20 percent.
The covered merchandise is classified in
the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00,
7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30,
7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60,
7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30,
7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30,
7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60,
7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00,
7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,
7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00,
7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90,
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00.
Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality
steel covered include: Vacuum degassed,
fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and
the substrate for motor lamination steel may
also enter under the following tariff numbers:
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50,
7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90,
7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60,
7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and
7226.99.01.80. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience
and Customs purposes, the written
description of the covered merchandise is
dispositive.
Appendix II
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum
1. Adverse Facts Available.
[FR Doc. 2016–31995 Filed 1–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:06 Jan 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–815, A–533–806]
Sulfanilic Acid From India and the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset
Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: As a result of these sunset
reviews, the Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) finds that revocation of
the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) orders
would be likely to lead to the
continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the dumping margins identified in the
‘‘Final Results of Reviews’’ section of
this notice.
DATES: Effective January 5, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mandy Mallott, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On September 1, 2016, the
Department published the notice of
initiation of the fourth sunset reviews of
the AD Orders 1 on sulfanilic acid from
India and the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’), pursuant to section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’).2 On September
14, 2016, Nation Ford Chemical
Company (‘‘Petitioner’’) notified the
Department of its intent to participate
within the 15-day period specified in
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the
Department’s regulations. Archroma,
U.S., Inc. (‘‘Archroma’’) claimed
interested-party status under section
771(9)(A) of the Act as a domestic
importer of subject merchandise to the
United States.
On September 30, 2016, the
Department received from Petitioner
complete substantive responses to the
Notice of Initiation, with respect to both
of the Orders, within the 30-day period
specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).3
1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid
from India, 58 FR 12025 (March 2, 1993) (‘‘India
Order’’), and Antidumping Duty Order: Sulfanilic
Acid from the People’s Republic from China, 57 FR
37524 (August 19, 1992) (‘‘PRC Order’’)
(collectively, ‘‘Orders’’).
2 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews,
81 FR 60386 (September 1, 2016) (‘‘Notice of
Initiation’’).
3 See Submissions from Petitioner to the
Department, ‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from the People’s
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1321
Also on September 30, 2016 the
Department received a response from
Archroma, which the Department
determined did not adequately meet the
requirements of a substantive response
under 19 CFR 351.218(d)–(e).4
Specifically, Archroma failed to address
and/or provide additional information
required of a respondent interested
party pursuant to 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(iii), nor did it demonstrate
whether the substantive submission is
eligible to be considered adequate
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A).5
No other interested parties submitted
substantive responses. As a result,
pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2),
the Department has conducted
expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of
the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from
India and the PRC.
Scope of the Orders
Imports covered by the antidumping
duty orders are all grades of sulfanilic
acid, which include technical (or crude)
sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified)
sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of
sulfanilic acid.
Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic
chemical produced from the direct
sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid.
Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material
in the production of optical brighteners,
food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete
additives. The principal differences
between the grades are the undesirable
quantities of residual aniline and alkali
insoluble materials present in the
sulfanilic acid. All grades are available
as dry, free flowing powders.
Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable
under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’),
contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic
acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and
1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble
materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also
classifiable under the subheading
2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98
percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5
percent maximum aniline and 0.25
percent maximum alkali insoluble
materials.
Republic of China/Petitioner’s Substantive
Response’’ (‘‘PRC Substantive Response’’), and
‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from India/Petitioner’s Substantive
Response’’ (‘‘India Substantive Response’’), each
dated September 30, 2016.
4 See Submissions from Archroma to the
Department, both titled ‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from India
and China: Archroma’s Substantive Response to
Notice of Initiation,’’ each dated September 30,
2016. See letter from the Department to Archroma,
‘‘Sunset Reviews of Sulfanilic Acid from the
People’s Republic of China and India,’’ dated
October 24, 2016.
5 Id.
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
1322
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2017 / Notices
Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate),
classifiable under the HTS subheading
2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or
crystalline material which contains 75
percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic
acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline
based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid
content, and 0.25 percent maximum
alkali insoluble materials based on the
equivalent sulfanilic acid content.
Although the HTS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope of these proceedings is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
A complete discussion of all issues
raised with respect to these sunset
reviews is provided in the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted
by this notice.6 The issues discussed in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
include the likelihood of continuation
or recurrence of dumping and the
magnitude of the margins of dumping
likely to prevail if the Orders were
revoked. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’).
ACCESS is available to registered users
at https://access.trade.gov and to all
parties in the Central Records Unit,
Room B8024 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
The signed Issues and Decision
Memorandum and the electronic
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of the Sunset Reviews
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and
752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the
Department determines that revocation
of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from
India and the PRC would likely lead to
a continuation or recurrence of
dumping, and that the magnitude of the
dumping margins likely to prevail
would be weighted-average margins up
to 71.09 percent for India, and up to
85.20 percent for the PRC.
6 See the Department’s memorandum from
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited
Fourth Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty
Orders on Sulfanilic Acid from India and the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently
with this notice.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:06 Jan 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders
(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of
proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305. Timely notification of the
return or 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.
We are issuing and publishing the
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Dated: December 29, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–31993 Filed 1–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–888]
Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews Pursuant to Settlement; 2004–
2005 and 2006–2007
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is amending the final
results of the February 3, 2004–July 31,
2005 and August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006
antidumping duty administrative
reviews of floor-standing, metal-top
ironing tables and certain parts thereof
from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) with respect to Since Hardware
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware)
pursuant to an agreement that settles the
related litigation.
DATES: Effective January 5, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael J. Heaney or Erin Kearney, AD/
CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement
and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482–
0167, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
On August 6, 2004, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on floor standing, metal top ironing
tables and certain parts thereof.1 On
April 19, 2007, the Department
published the amended final results of
the February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005
administrative review.2 On, March 18,
2008, the Department published the
final results of the August 1, 2005–July
31, 2006 administrative review.3
Following the publication of the
February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005
Amended Final Results, and the August
1, 2005–July 31, 2006 Final Results,
Since Hardware filed lawsuits with the
CIT challenging the Department’s final
results of both the February 3, 2004–July
31, 2005 and the August 1, 2005–July
31, 2006 administrative reviews. The
United States and Since Hardware have
entered into an agreement to settle the
outstanding litigation. The Court issued
its Judgment on December 8, 2016.4
Assessment of Duties
Pursuant to the Court’s Judgment, the
Department shall instruct Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties on all shipments of
floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables
and certain parts thereof, from the PRC,
which were entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption during the
period February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005,
and that were produced or exported by
Since Hardware at a rate of 72.29
percent. The Department shall also
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all shipments of floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and
certain parts thereof, from the PRC,
which were entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption during the
1 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order: Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004)
(Order).
2 See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables
and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Final
Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 13239 (Dep’t of
Commerce Mar. 21, 2007), amended by Notice of
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Floor Standing, Metal-Top
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 19689 (April 19,
2007) (February 3–2004–July 31, 2005 Amended
Final Results).
3 See Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables
and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review 73 FR 14437 (March
18, 2008) August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 Final
Results).
4 See Home Products International, Inc. v. United
States, Court Nos. 07–00123, 08–00094 (December
8, 2016).
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1321-1322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31993]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-815, A-533-806]
Sulfanilic Acid From India and the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty
Orders
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of
Commerce (``Department'') finds that revocation of the antidumping duty
(``AD'') orders would be likely to lead to the continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the ``Final
Results of Reviews'' section of this notice.
DATES: Effective January 5, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mandy Mallott, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of
initiation of the fourth sunset reviews of the AD Orders \1\ on
sulfanilic acid from India and the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act'').\2\ On September 14, 2016, Nation Ford Chemical
Company (``Petitioner'') notified the Department of its intent to
participate within the 15-day period specified in section
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Archroma, U.S., Inc.
(``Archroma'') claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(A)
of the Act as a domestic importer of subject merchandise to the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid from India, 58
FR 12025 (March 2, 1993) (``India Order''), and Antidumping Duty
Order: Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic from China, 57 FR
37524 (August 19, 1992) (``PRC Order'') (collectively, ``Orders'').
\2\ See Initiation of Five-Year (``Sunset'') Reviews, 81 FR
60386 (September 1, 2016) (``Notice of Initiation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2016, the Department received from Petitioner
complete substantive responses to the Notice of Initiation, with
respect to both of the Orders, within the 30-day period specified in 19
CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).\3\ Also on September 30, 2016 the Department
received a response from Archroma, which the Department determined did
not adequately meet the requirements of a substantive response under 19
CFR 351.218(d)-(e).\4\ Specifically, Archroma failed to address and/or
provide additional information required of a respondent interested
party pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(iii), nor did it demonstrate
whether the substantive submission is eligible to be considered
adequate pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A).\5\ No other
interested parties submitted substantive responses. As a result,
pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department has conducted expedited (120-
day) sunset reviews of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and
the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Submissions from Petitioner to the Department,
``Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China/Petitioner's
Substantive Response'' (``PRC Substantive Response''), and
``Sulfanilic Acid from India/Petitioner's Substantive Response''
(``India Substantive Response''), each dated September 30, 2016.
\4\ See Submissions from Archroma to the Department, both titled
``Sulfanilic Acid from India and China: Archroma's Substantive
Response to Notice of Initiation,'' each dated September 30, 2016.
See letter from the Department to Archroma, ``Sunset Reviews of
Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China and India,''
dated October 24, 2016.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Orders
Imports covered by the antidumping duty orders are all grades of
sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid,
refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic
acid.
Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the
direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is
used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food
colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal
differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of
residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the
sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders.
Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading
2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS''), contains 96
percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0
percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid,
also classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains
98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and
0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials.
[[Page 1322]]
Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS
subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material
which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5
percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid
content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on
the equivalent sulfanilic acid content.
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these
proceedings is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
A complete discussion of all issues raised with respect to these
sunset reviews is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.\6\ The issues
discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood
of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the
margins of dumping likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked. The
Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file
electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``ACCESS'').
ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and
to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum
and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the Department's memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results
of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on
Sulfanilic Acid from India and the People's Republic of China,''
dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of the Sunset Reviews
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act,
the Department determines that revocation of the AD orders on
sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC would likely lead to a
continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the
dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up
to 71.09 percent for India, and up to 85.20 percent for the PRC.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of the return or 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.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(f)(4).
Dated: December 29, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-31993 Filed 1-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
