Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 29828-29833 [2017-13823]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29828
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
certain welded stainless steel pipe from
South Korea and Taiwan would likely
lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping and material injury to an
industry in the United States. Therefore,
the Department is publishing a notice of
continuation for these AD orders.
DATES: June 30, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–5255.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 30, 1992, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the antidumping
duty orders on welded ASTM A–312
stainless steel pipe (WSSP) from South
Korea and Taiwan. On November 1,
2016, the Department published a notice
of initiation of its fourth five-year
(sunset) reviews of the antidumping
duty orders on welded ASTM A–312
stainless steel pipe from South Korea
and Taiwan.1
As a result of these sunset reviews,
the Department determined that
revocation of the AD orders on WSSP
from South Korea and Taiwan would
likely lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping, and therefore, notified the
U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC) of the magnitude of the margins
likely to prevail should these orders be
revoked.2
On May 17, 2017, the ITC published
its determination that revocation of the
AD orders on WSSP from South Korea
and Taiwan would likely lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time, pursuant to section 751(C) of the
Act.3
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Orders
The merchandise subject to the
antidumping duty orders is welded
austenitic stainless steel pipe that meets
the standards and specifications set
forth by the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the
1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews,
81 FR 75808 (November 1, 2016).
2 See Welded ASTM A–312 Stainless Steel Pipe
From South Korea and Taiwan: Final Results of the
Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of the
Antidumping Duty Orders, 82 FR 12798 (March 7,
2017) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
3 See Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From
Korea and Taiwan; Determinations, 94 FR 22674
(May 17, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
welded form of chromium-nickel pipe
designated ASTM A–312. The
merchandise covered by the scope of the
orders also includes austenitic welded
stainless steel pipes made according to
the standards of other nations which are
comparable to ASTM A–312.
WSSP is produced by forming
stainless steel flat-rolled products into a
tubular configuration and welding along
the seam. WSSP is a commodity product
generally used as a conduit to transmit
liquids or gases. Major applications for
steel pipe include, but are not limited
to, digester lines, blow lines,
pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical
stock lines, brewery process and
transport lines, general food processing
lines, automotive paint lines, and paper
process machines. Imports of WSSP are
currently classifiable under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings: 7306.40.5005,
7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040,
7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and
7306.40.5085.4 Although these
subheadings include both pipes and
tubes, the scope of the antidumping
duty orders is limited to welded
austenitic stainless steel pipes. The
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes.
However, the written description of the
scope of the orders is dispositive.
Continuation of the Orders
As a result of the determinations by
the Department and the ITC that
revocation of the antidumping duty
orders would likely lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping and material
injury to an industry in the United
States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of
the Act, the Department hereby orders
the continuation of the antidumping
duty orders on welded ASTM A–312
stainless steel pipe from South Korea
and Taiwan.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
will continue to collect antidumping
duty cash deposits at the rates in effect
at the time of entry for all imports of
subject merchandise. The effective date
of the continuation of these orders will
be the date of publication in the Federal
Register of the notice of continuation of
the antidumping duty orders on WSSP
from Korea and Taiwan. Pursuant to
section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the
Department intends to initiate the
sunset reviews of these orders not later
than 30 days prior to the fifth
4 HTS 7306.40.5065 previously listed in the scope
of the order for this product is no longer a valid
reporting number, having been replaced by
7306.40.6052 and 7306.40.6054 as of January 1,
1996.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
anniversary of the effective date of
continuation.
These sunset reviews and this notice
are in accordance with section 751(c) of
the Act and published pursuant to
section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 27, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017–13988 Filed 6–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–423–813, A–301–803, A–549–833]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
From Belgium, Colombia, and
Thailand: Initiation of Less-Than-FairValue Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective June 22, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Stolz at (202) 482–4474 (Belgium);
Stephanie Moore at (202) 482–3692
(Colombia); and George McMahon at
(202) 482–1167 (Thailand), AD/CVD
Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petitions
On June 2, 2017, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) received
antidumping duty (AD) petitions (the
Petitions) concerning imports of citric
acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid)
from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand,
filed in proper form on behalf of Archer
Daniels Midland Company (ADM);
Cargill Incorporated (Cargill); and Tate
& Lyle Ingredients America LLC (Tate &
Lyle) (collectively, the petitioners).1 The
Petitions were accompanied by a
countervailing duty (CVD) petition
concerning citric acid from Thailand.2
The petitioners are domestic producers
of citric acid.3
On June 7, 12, 14, and 16, 2017, the
Department requested additional
information and clarification of certain
areas of the Petitions.4 The petitioners
1 See ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Citric
Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Belgium,
Colombia, and Thailand,’’, dated June 2, 2017 (the
Petitions).
2 Id.
3 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
4 See Country-specific letters to the petitioners
from the Department concerning supplemental
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
filed responses to these requests on June
9, 14, 15, and 16, 2017, respectively.5
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), the petitioners allege that imports
of citric acid and certain citrate salts
from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand,
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
Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to the
petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed these Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because
the petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
The Department also finds that the
petitioners demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
initiation of the AD investigations that
the petitioners are requesting.6
Period of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on
June 2, 2017, the period of investigation
(POI) for each investigation is April 1,
2016, through March 31, 2017.7
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these
investigations is citric acid and certain
citrate salts from Belgium, Colombia,
and Thailand. For a full description of
the scope of these investigations, see the
‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the
Appendix to this notice.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Comments on Scope of the
Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the
Department issued questions to, and
received responses from, the petitioners
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petitions would be an accurate
questions on each of the country-specific records,
dated June 7, 2017; see also Letter to the petitioners
from the Department concerning supplemental
questions on general issues, dated June 12, 2017;
Memorandum to the File ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
Belgium and Thailand. Re: Overhead and Profit,’’
dated June 14, 2017.
5 See Country-specific amendments to the
Petitions on each of the country-specific records;
see also Letter from the Petitioners, ‘‘Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate
Salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand:
Petitioners’ Responses to Supplemental
Questions—Volume I,’’ dated June 14, 2017
(General Issues Supplement).
6 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions’’ section below.
7 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief.8
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations, we are setting
aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage
(scope). The Department will consider
all comments received from parties and,
if necessary, will consult with parties
prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determinations. If scope comments
include factual information (see 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21)), all such factual
information should be limited to public
information. In order to facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested
parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on July 12,
2017, which is 20 calendar days from
the signature date of this notice. Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information (also limited to
public information), must be filed by
5:00 p.m. ET on July 24, 2017, which is
the next business day after 10 calendar
days after the initial comments. All such
comments must be filed on the records
of each of the concurrent AD and CVD
investigations.
The Department requests that any
factual information the parties consider
relevant to the scope of the
investigations be submitted during this
time period. However, if a party
subsequently believes that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope of the investigations may be
relevant, the party may contact the
Department and request permission to
submit the additional information. As
stated above, all such comments must
be filed on the records of each of the
concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(ACCESS).9 An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the time and date when
it is due. Documents excepted from the
electronic submission requirements
must be filed manually (i.e., in paper
8 See
General Issues Supplement, at 1–4.
19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing
requirements); see also 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 help using ACCESS can be found at
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook
can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/
Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling
%20Procedures.pdf.
9 See
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29829
form) with Enforcement and
Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room
18022, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped
with the date and time of receipt by the
applicable deadlines.
Comments on Product Characteristics
for AD Questionnaires
The Department will provide
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the appropriate physical
characteristics of citric acid to be
reported in response to the
Department’s AD questionnaires. This
information will be used to identify the
key physical characteristics of the
merchandise under consideration in
order to report the relevant costs of
production accurately as well as to
develop appropriate productcomparison criteria.
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) productcomparison criteria. We note 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, although there may be
some physical product characteristics
utilized by manufacturers to describe
citric acid, 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 questionnaires, all
product characteristics comments must
be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 12,
2017, which is 20 calendar days from
the signature date of this notice. Any
rebuttal comments, must be filed by
5:00 p.m. ET on July 24, 2017. All
comments and submissions to the
Department must be filed electronically
using ACCESS, as explained above, on
the records of the Belgium, Colombia,
and Thailand less-than-fair-value
investigations.
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
29830
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
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 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,10 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.11
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
10 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)).
11 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
‘‘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 Petitions).
With regard to the domestic like
product, the petitioners do not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigations. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that citric
acid, as defined in the scope, constitutes
a single domestic like product and we
have analyzed industry support in terms
of that domestic like product.12
In determining whether the
petitioners have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
the Petitions with reference to the
domestic like product as defined in the
‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the
Appendix to this notice. To establish
industry support, the petitioners
provided their own production of the
domestic like product in 2016.13 The
petitioners state that they represent the
totality of the domestic industry
producing citric acid; therefore, the
Petitions are supported by 100 percent
of the U.S. industry.14
Our review of the data provided in the
Petitions, the General Issues
Supplement, and other information
readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioners have
established industry support for the
Petitions.15 First, the Petitions
established support from domestic
producers (or workers) accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product
and, as such, the Department is not
required to take further action in order
to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
12 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis, see Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate
Salts from Belgium (Belgium AD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Petitions Covering Citric Acid and Certain
Citrate Salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand
(Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate
Salts from Colombia (Colombia AD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from Thailand (Thailand AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These
checklists are dated concurrently with, and hereby
adopted by, this notice and on file electronically via
ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is
also available in the Central Records Unit, Room
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce
building.
13 See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–13.
14 Id., at 2–3 and Exhibits I–1 and I–2; see also
General Issues Supplement, at 1, 7 and Attachments
1 and 3.
15 See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist, Colombia
AD Initiation Checklist, and Thailand AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
polling).16 Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) 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 Petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.17 Finally, 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 Petitions
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 Petitions.18 Accordingly, the
Department determines that the
Petitions were filed on behalf of the
domestic industry within the meaning
of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed the Petitions 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
investigations that they are requesting
that the Department initiate.19
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The 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, the petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.20
The petitioners contend that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share;
underselling and price suppression or
depression; lost sales and revenues;
adverse impact on the domestic
industry’s production, capacity
utilization, and U.S. shipments; and
declines in financial performance.21 We
have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material
16 See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
Belgium AD Initiation Checklist, Colombia AD
Initiation Checklist, and Thailand AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
17 See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist, Colombia
AD Initiation Checklist, and Thailand AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 21–22 and
Exhibit I–12.
21 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 17–32 and
Exhibits I–7 and I–9—I–15; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 1, 7 and Attachments 1 and 3.
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
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.22
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegations of sales at less than fair value
upon which the Department based its
decision to initiate investigations of
imports of citric acid from Belgium,
Colombia and Thailand. The sources of
data for the deductions and adjustments
relating to U.S. price and NV are
discussed in greater detail in the
country-specific initiation checklists.23
Export Price
For Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand,
the petitioners based export price (EP)
on two methodologies: (1) POI average
unit values (AUVs), and (2) transactionspecific AUVs for shipments of citric
acid from the three countries. The first
uses official U.S. import statistics to
determine the AUV of imports of citric
acid under the relevant Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) subheading during the POI.
The second involves matching
individual shipments of goods
identified in the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection’s (CBP’s) Automated
Manifest System (AMS) to individual
entries of citric acid in the official U.S.
import statistics for specific months and
specific ports.24 Because the AUVs are
based on the reported customs values
and include freight and brokerage and
handling to the port of exportation, the
petitioners adjusted the customs values
for foreign brokerage and handling and
foreign inland freight costs to arrive at
an ex-factory price.25
Normal Value Based on Home Market
Prices
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
For Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand,
the petitioners provided home market
price information obtained through
market research for citric acid produced
in, and offered for sale in, each of these
22 See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand (Attachment III);
Colombia AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III;
and Thailand AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III.
23 See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist; Colombia
AD Initiation Checklist; and Thailand AD Initiation
Checklist.
24 See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist; Colombia
AD Initiation Checklist; and Thailand AD Initiation
Checklist.
25 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
countries.26 For all three of these
countries, the petitioners provided a
declaration from a market researcher for
the price information.27 Where
applicable, the petitioners made certain
deductions from the prices for
movement or other expenses, consistent
with the terms of sale.28
For Belgium and Thailand, the
petitioners provided information
indicating that sales of citric acid in the
home market were made at prices below
the cost of production (COP) and, as a
result, calculated NV based on
constructed value (CV).29 30 For further
discussion of COP and NV based on CV,
see below.
Normal Value Based on Constructed
Value
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the
Act, COP consists of the cost of
manufacturing (COM); selling, general
and administrative (SG&A) expenses;
financial expenses; and packing
expenses.
For Belgium, the petitioners
calculated COM during the POI,
adjusted for known differences based on
information available to the
petitioners.31 The petitioners valued
material inputs using publicly available
data for the prices of these inputs,
where possible.32 The petitioners
valued labor inputs for citric acid using
publicly-available data multiplied by
the product-specific usage rates.33 To
calculate the factory overhead rate, the
petitioners relied on the fiscal year end
(FYE) December 31, 2015, audited
financial statements of Belgian citric
acid producer, S.A. Citrique Belge N.V.
(Citrique Belge).34 To calculate the
SG&A plus financial expense rate, the
petitioners also relied on the FYE
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist and
Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
30 Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of
2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD
laws were made. See Trade Preferences Extension
Act of 2015, Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362
(2015). See also Dates of Application of
Amendments to the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade
Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793
(August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The
amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782
of the Act are applicable to all determinations made
on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to
these AD investigations. See Applicability Notice,
80 FR at 46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be
found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
31 See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29831
December 31, 2015, audited financial
statements of Citrique Belge.35
Because certain home market prices
fell below COP, pursuant to sections
773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act,
as noted above, the petitioners
calculated NVs based on CV.36 Pursuant
to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists
of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses,
packing expenses, and profit. The
petitioners calculated CV using the
same COP described above, adding an
amount for profit.37 The petitioners
calculated the profit rate based on the
fiscal year 2016 financial statements of
one of the U.S. citric acid producers.38
The profit rate was applied to the
corresponding total COM, SG&A, and
financial expenses calculated above to
derive CV.39
For Thailand, the petitioners
calculated COM using the same
surrogate as was used for Belgium
during the POI, adjusted for known
differences based on information
available to the petitioners.40 The
petitioners valued material inputs using
publicly available data for the prices of
these inputs, where possible. The
petitioners valued labor and energy
inputs for citric acid using publicly
available data multiplied by the
product-specific usage rates.41 To
calculate the SG&A plus financial
expense rate, the petitioners relied on
the FYE December 31, 2015, audited
financial statements for COFCO
Biochemical (Thailand) Co., Ltd.
(COFCO), Niran Thailand Co., Ltd.
(Niran), Sunshine Biotech International
Co., Ltd. (Sunshine), and Thai Citric
Acid Co., Ltd. (Thai Citric). The rate was
computed based on the FYE December
31, 2015, SG&A (including other income
and expenses), plus financial and
investment income and financial
costs.42 Because none of the four
companies’ financial statements
contained any factory overhead detail,
the petitioners relied on the audited
financial statements for Ajinomoto
Company (Thailand) Ltd. (Ajinomoto)
for the fiscal year 2015–2016, i.e., April
2015 through March 2016. Ajinomoto is
a producer of lysine and monosodium
glutamate, both of which are biofermentation products produced using
processes similar to those used for citric
acid production.43
35 Id.
36 See
Belgium AD Initiation Checklist.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 See
Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id.
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
29832
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
Because certain home market prices
fell below COP, pursuant to sections
773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act,
as noted above, the petitioners also
calculated NV based on CV.44 Pursuant
to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists
of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses,
packing expenses, and profit. To
calculate CV, we used the same COM
calculated by the petitioners, plus the
revised SG&A, and financial expense
figures to compute the COP.45 To
calculate the profit rate, we relied on the
2015 financial statements for a Thai
producer which was then applied to the
total of material, labor and energy
(MLE), factory overhead costs, SG&A
and financial expenses.46
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the
petitioners, there is reason to believe
that imports of citric acid from Belgium,
Colombia, and Thailand are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value. Based on
comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance
with sections 772 and 773(a) of the Act,
the estimated dumping margin(s) for
citric acid are as follows: 41.18 to 49.46
percent for Colombia,47 and 4.6 percent
to 40.0 percent for Thailand.48 Based on
comparisons of EP to CV in accordance
with sections 772 and 773(e) of the Act,
the estimated dumping margins are as
follows: 15.80 percent to 62.13 percent
for Belgium,49 and 15.18 percent to
39.98 percent for Thailand.50
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigations
Based upon the examination of the
AD Petitions, we find that the Petitions
meet the requirements of section 732 of
the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD
investigations to determine whether
imports of citric acid from Belgium,
Colombia, and Thailand 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
determinations no later than 140 days
after the date of this initiation.
Respondent Selection
Based on information from
independent sources, the petitioners
identified one company in Belgium, one
company in Colombia, and four
companies in Thailand, as producers/
44 Id.
51 See
45 Id.
Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I–5.
see also Volume II of the Petitions, at 1 and
Exhibit II–1.
53 See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I–5,
and Volume III of the Petitions, at 1 and Exhibit III–
1.
54 See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I–5.
52 Id.;
46 Id.
47 See
Colombia AD Initiation Checklist.
Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
49 See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist.
50 See Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
48 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
exporters of citric acid.51 With respect
to Thailand, following standard practice
in AD investigations involving marketeconomy countries, the Department
intends to review U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S.
imports under the appropriate HTSUS
numbers listed with the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigations,’’ in the Appendix below.
If it determines that, due to the large
number of exporters or producers, it
cannot individually examine each
company based upon the Department’s
resources, then the Department will
select respondents based on the CBP
data. We also intend to release the CBP
data under Administrative Protective
Order (APO) to all parties with access to
information protected by APO.
Comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection should be
submitted seven calendar days after the
placement of the CBP data on the record
of the investigation. Parties wishing to
submit rebuttal comments should
submit those comments five calendar
days after the deadline for the initial
comments.
Although the Department normally
relies on the number of producers/
exporters identified in the petition and/
or import data from CBP to determine
whether to select a limited number of
producers/exporters for individual
examination in AD investigations, the
Petitions identified only one company
as a producer/exporter of citric acid in
Belgium, Citrique Belge,52 and one
company in Colombia, Sucroal, S.A.53
We currently know of no additional
producers/exporters of merchandise
under consideration from these
countries, and the petitioners provided
information from independent sources
as support.54 Accordingly, the
Department intends to examine all
known producers/exporters in the
investigations for Belgium and
Colombia (i.e., the companies cited
above for each respective investigation).
Parties wishing to comment on
respondent selection for Belgium and
Colombia must do so within five days
of the publication of this notice in the
Federal Register.
Comments for the above-referenced
investigations must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically-filed document must be
received successfully in its entirety by
5:00 p.m. ET by the dates noted above.
We intend to finalize our decision
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
regarding respondent selection within
20 days of publication of this notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version
of the Petitions have been provided to
the governments of Belgium, Colombia,
and Thailand via ACCESS. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide
a copy of the public version of the
Petitions to each exporter (as named in
the Petitions), consistent with 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petitions were filed, whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports
of citric acid from Belgium, Colombia,
and/or Thailand are materially injuring
or threatening material injury to a U.S.
industry.55 A negative ITC
determination for any country will
result in the investigation being
terminated with respect to that
country.56 Otherwise, these
investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19
CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (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). Any party, when
submitting factual information, must
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. Time
limits for the submission of factual
information are addressed in 19 CFR
351.301, which provides specific time
limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Parties
should review the regulations prior to
55 See
section 733(a) of the Act.
56 Id.
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
submitting factual information in these
investigations.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under Part 351, or
as otherwise specified by the Secretary.
In general, an extension request will be
considered untimely if it is filed after
the expiration of the time limit
established under 19 CFR 351.301. For
submissions that are due from multiple
parties simultaneously, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date.
Under certain circumstances, we may
elect to specify a different time limit by
which extension requests will be
considered untimely for submissions
which are due from multiple parties
simultaneously. In such a case, we will
inform parties in the letter or
memorandum setting forth the deadline
(including a specified time) by which
extension requests must be filed to be
considered timely. An extension request
must be made in a separate, stand-alone
submission; under limited
circumstances we will grant untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time
limits. Review Extension of Time Limits;
Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20,
2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/201322853.htm, prior to submitting factual
information in these investigations.
Certification Requirements
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.57
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.58 The
Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with applicable revised
certification requirements.
57 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 frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
58 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 these investigations should ensure
that they meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed in 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: June 22, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Appendix—Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations includes all grades and
granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium
citrate, and potassium citrate in their
unblended forms, whether dry or in solution,
and regardless of packaging type. The scope
also includes blends of citric acid, sodium
citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as
blends with other ingredients, such as sugar,
where the unblended form(s) of citric acid,
sodium citrate, and potassium citrate
constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of
the blend.
The scope also includes all forms of crude
calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate
monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate
tetrahydrate, which are intermediate
products in the production of citric acid,
sodium citrate, and potassium citrate.
The scope includes the hydrous and
anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate
and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate,
otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt,
and the monohydrate and monopotassium
forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate
also includes both trisodium citrate and
monosodium citrate which are also known as
citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid
monosodium salt, respectively.
The scope does not include calcium citrate
that satisfies the standards set forth in the
United States Pharmacopeia and has been
mixed with a functional excipient, such as
dextrose or starch, where the excipient
constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, of
the product.
Citric acid and sodium citrate are
classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and
2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS),
respectively. Potassium citrate and crude
calcium citrate are classifiable under
2918.15.5000 and, if included in a mixture or
blend, 3824.99.9295 of the HTSUS. Blends
that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and
potassium citrate are classifiable under
3824.99.9295 of the HTSUS. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29833
written description of the merchandise is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–13823 Filed 6–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–122–857]
Certain Softwood Lumber Products
From Canada: Preliminary Affirmative
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) preliminarily
determines that certain softwood lumber
products (softwood lumber) from
Canada is being, or is likely to be, sold
in the United States at less than fair
value (LTFV). The period of
investigation (POI) is October 1, 2015,
through September 30, 2016.
DATES: Effective June 30, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Bailey or Thomas Martin, AD/
CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement
and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–0193 or (202) 482–3936,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
This preliminary determination is
made in accordance with section 733(b)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act). The Department published the
notice of initiation of this investigation
on December 22, 2016.1 On April 14,
2017, the Department postponed the
preliminary determination of this
investigation and the revised deadline is
now June 23, 2017.2 On April 13, 2017,
the Department preliminarily
determined that critical circumstances
exist.3 For a complete description of the
events that followed the initiation of
this investigation, see the Preliminary
1 See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation, 81 FR 93892 (December 22, 2016)
(Initiation Notice).
2 See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada: Postponement of Preliminary
Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation,
82 FR 18421 (April 19, 2017).
3 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Investigations of Certain Softwood Lumber Products
From Canada: Preliminary Determinations of
Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 19219 (April 26,
2017) (Preliminary Critical Circumstances
Determinations).
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29828-29833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13823]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-423-813, A-301-803, A-549-833]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Belgium, Colombia, and
Thailand: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective June 22, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz at (202) 482-4474
(Belgium); Stephanie Moore at (202) 482-3692 (Colombia); and George
McMahon at (202) 482-1167 (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement
and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On June 2, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions (the Petitions) concerning
imports of citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from
Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand, filed in proper form on behalf of
Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM); Cargill Incorporated (Cargill);
and Tate & Lyle Ingredients America LLC (Tate & Lyle) (collectively,
the petitioners).\1\ The Petitions were accompanied by a countervailing
duty (CVD) petition concerning citric acid from Thailand.\2\ The
petitioners are domestic producers of citric acid.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties on Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from
Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand,'', dated June 2, 2017 (the
Petitions).
\2\ Id.
\3\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 12, 14, and 16, 2017, the Department requested
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the
Petitions.\4\ The petitioners
[[Page 29829]]
filed responses to these requests on June 9, 14, 15, and 16, 2017,
respectively.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Country-specific letters to the petitioners from the
Department concerning supplemental questions on each of the country-
specific records, dated June 7, 2017; see also Letter to the
petitioners from the Department concerning supplemental questions on
general issues, dated June 12, 2017; Memorandum to the File
``Antidumping Duty Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Belgium and Thailand.
Re: Overhead and Profit,'' dated June 14, 2017.
\5\ See Country-specific amendments to the Petitions on each of
the country-specific records; see also Letter from the Petitioners,
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate
Salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand: Petitioners' Responses
to Supplemental Questions--Volume I,'' dated June 14, 2017 (General
Issues Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of citric acid
and certain citrate salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand, 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 Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably
available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also
finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support
with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the
petitioners are requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on June 2, 2017, the period of
investigation (POI) for each investigation is April 1, 2016, through
March 31, 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is citric acid and
certain citrate salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand. For a full
description of the scope of these investigations, see the ``Scope of
the Investigations,'' in the Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See General Issues Supplement, at 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all
comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If
scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)),
all such factual information should be limited to public information.
In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on July 12, 2017, which is 20 calendar days
from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which
may include factual information (also limited to public information),
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 24, 2017, which is the next
business day after 10 calendar days after the initial comments. All
such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD
and CVD investigations.
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently believes that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department
and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated
above, all such comments must be filed on the records of each of the
concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\9\ An electronically
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form)
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); see
also 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 help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires
The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of citric acid to
be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics
of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant
costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate
product-comparison criteria.
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) product-comparison criteria. We note 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, although there
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers
to describe citric acid, 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 questionnaires, all product
characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 12,
2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.
Any rebuttal comments, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 24, 2017.
All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the
Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand less-than-fair-value investigations.
[[Page 29830]]
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
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 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,\10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\11\ 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
Petitions).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that citric acid, as
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis, see
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from Belgium (Belgium AD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Citric Acid
and Certain Citrate Salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand
(Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Colombia
(Colombia AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from Thailand (Thailand AD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice and on file
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is
also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the Appendix to
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided
their own production of the domestic like product in 2016.\13\ The
petitioners state that they represent the totality of the domestic
industry producing citric acid; therefore, the Petitions are supported
by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-13.
\14\ Id., at 2-3 and Exhibits I-1 and I-2; see also General
Issues Supplement, at 1, 7 and Attachments 1 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General
Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the
Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry
support for the Petitions.\15\ First, the Petitions established support
from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50
percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as
such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to
evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\16\ Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) 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 Petitions account for at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.\17\
Finally, 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 Petitions
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 Petitions.\18\ Accordingly, the Department
determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist, Colombia AD Initiation
Checklist, and Thailand AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\16\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Belgium AD
Initiation Checklist, Colombia AD Initiation Checklist, and Thailand
AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\17\ See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist, Colombia AD Initiation
Checklist, and Thailand AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions 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 investigations that
they are requesting that the Department initiate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The 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, the
petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 21-22 and Exhibit I-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression
or depression; lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic
industry's production, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; and
declines in financial performance.\21\ We have assessed the allegations
and supporting evidence regarding material
[[Page 29831]]
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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 17-32 and Exhibits I-7
and I-9--I-15; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 7 and
Attachments 1 and 3.
\22\ See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Belgium,
Colombia, and Thailand (Attachment III); Colombia AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment III; and Thailand AD Initiation Checklist,
at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate investigations of imports of citric acid from Belgium,
Colombia and Thailand. The sources of data for the deductions and
adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater
detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist; Colombia AD Initiation
Checklist; and Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price
For Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand, the petitioners based export
price (EP) on two methodologies: (1) POI average unit values (AUVs),
and (2) transaction-specific AUVs for shipments of citric acid from the
three countries. The first uses official U.S. import statistics to
determine the AUV of imports of citric acid under the relevant
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading
during the POI. The second involves matching individual shipments of
goods identified in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's)
Automated Manifest System (AMS) to individual entries of citric acid in
the official U.S. import statistics for specific months and specific
ports.\24\ Because the AUVs are based on the reported customs values
and include freight and brokerage and handling to the port of
exportation, the petitioners adjusted the customs values for foreign
brokerage and handling and foreign inland freight costs to arrive at an
ex-factory price.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist; Colombia AD Initiation
Checklist; and Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices
For Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand, the petitioners provided home
market price information obtained through market research for citric
acid produced in, and offered for sale in, each of these countries.\26\
For all three of these countries, the petitioners provided a
declaration from a market researcher for the price information.\27\
Where applicable, the petitioners made certain deductions from the
prices for movement or other expenses, consistent with the terms of
sale.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Belgium and Thailand, the petitioners provided information
indicating that sales of citric acid in the home market were made at
prices below the cost of production (COP) and, as a result, calculated
NV based on constructed value (CV).29 30 For further
discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist and Thailand AD
Initiation Checklist.
\30\ Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made. See Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). See
also Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act
of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The
amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are
applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015,
and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations. See Applicability
Notice, 80 FR at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost
of manufacturing (COM); selling, general and administrative (SG&A)
expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses.
For Belgium, the petitioners calculated COM during the POI,
adjusted for known differences based on information available to the
petitioners.\31\ The petitioners valued material inputs using publicly
available data for the prices of these inputs, where possible.\32\ The
petitioners valued labor inputs for citric acid using publicly-
available data multiplied by the product-specific usage rates.\33\ To
calculate the factory overhead rate, the petitioners relied on the
fiscal year end (FYE) December 31, 2015, audited financial statements
of Belgian citric acid producer, S.A. Citrique Belge N.V. (Citrique
Belge).\34\ To calculate the SG&A plus financial expense rate, the
petitioners also relied on the FYE December 31, 2015, audited financial
statements of Citrique Belge.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Id.
\34\ Id.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because certain home market prices fell below COP, pursuant to
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, the
petitioners calculated NVs based on CV.\36\ Pursuant to section 773(e)
of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses, packing
expenses, and profit. The petitioners calculated CV using the same COP
described above, adding an amount for profit.\37\ The petitioners
calculated the profit rate based on the fiscal year 2016 financial
statements of one of the U.S. citric acid producers.\38\ The profit
rate was applied to the corresponding total COM, SG&A, and financial
expenses calculated above to derive CV.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist.
\37\ Id.
\38\ Id.
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Thailand, the petitioners calculated COM using the same
surrogate as was used for Belgium during the POI, adjusted for known
differences based on information available to the petitioners.\40\ The
petitioners valued material inputs using publicly available data for
the prices of these inputs, where possible. The petitioners valued
labor and energy inputs for citric acid using publicly available data
multiplied by the product-specific usage rates.\41\ To calculate the
SG&A plus financial expense rate, the petitioners relied on the FYE
December 31, 2015, audited financial statements for COFCO Biochemical
(Thailand) Co., Ltd. (COFCO), Niran Thailand Co., Ltd. (Niran),
Sunshine Biotech International Co., Ltd. (Sunshine), and Thai Citric
Acid Co., Ltd. (Thai Citric). The rate was computed based on the FYE
December 31, 2015, SG&A (including other income and expenses), plus
financial and investment income and financial costs.\42\ Because none
of the four companies' financial statements contained any factory
overhead detail, the petitioners relied on the audited financial
statements for Ajinomoto Company (Thailand) Ltd. (Ajinomoto) for the
fiscal year 2015-2016, i.e., April 2015 through March 2016. Ajinomoto
is a producer of lysine and monosodium glutamate, both of which are
bio-fermentation products produced using processes similar to those
used for citric acid production.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
\41\ Id.
\42\ Id.
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29832]]
Because certain home market prices fell below COP, pursuant to
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, the
petitioners also calculated NV based on CV.\44\ Pursuant to section
773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses,
packing expenses, and profit. To calculate CV, we used the same COM
calculated by the petitioners, plus the revised SG&A, and financial
expense figures to compute the COP.\45\ To calculate the profit rate,
we relied on the 2015 financial statements for a Thai producer which
was then applied to the total of material, labor and energy (MLE),
factory overhead costs, SG&A and financial expenses.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of citric acid from Belgium, Colombia, and
Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance
with sections 772 and 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping
margin(s) for citric acid are as follows: 41.18 to 49.46 percent for
Colombia,\47\ and 4.6 percent to 40.0 percent for Thailand.\48\ Based
on comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with sections 772 and 773(e)
of the Act, the estimated dumping margins are as follows: 15.80 percent
to 62.13 percent for Belgium,\49\ and 15.18 percent to 39.98 percent
for Thailand.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Colombia AD Initiation Checklist.
\48\ See Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
\49\ See Belgium AD Initiation Checklist.
\50\ See Thailand AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations
Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions, we find that the
Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore,
we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of
citric acid from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand 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
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Respondent Selection
Based on information from independent sources, the petitioners
identified one company in Belgium, one company in Colombia, and four
companies in Thailand, as producers/exporters of citric acid.\51\ With
respect to Thailand, following standard practice in AD investigations
involving market-economy countries, the Department intends to review
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under
the appropriate HTSUS numbers listed with the ``Scope of the
Investigations,'' in the Appendix below. If it determines that, due to
the large number of exporters or producers, it cannot individually
examine each company based upon the Department's resources, then the
Department will select respondents based on the CBP data. We also
intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order
(APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO.
Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be
submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on
the record of the investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal
comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the
deadline for the initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Department normally relies on the number of producers/
exporters identified in the petition and/or import data from CBP to
determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for
individual examination in AD investigations, the Petitions identified
only one company as a producer/exporter of citric acid in Belgium,
Citrique Belge,\52\ and one company in Colombia, Sucroal, S.A.\53\ We
currently know of no additional producers/exporters of merchandise
under consideration from these countries, and the petitioners provided
information from independent sources as support.\54\ Accordingly, the
Department intends to examine all known producers/exporters in the
investigations for Belgium and Colombia (i.e., the companies cited
above for each respective investigation). Parties wishing to comment on
respondent selection for Belgium and Colombia must do so within five
days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Id.; see also Volume II of the Petitions, at 1 and Exhibit
II-1.
\53\ See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I-5, and Volume
III of the Petitions, at 1 and Exhibit III-1.
\54\ See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments for the above-referenced investigations must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be
received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. ET by the dates
noted above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent
selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to the governments of Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand via
ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of
the public version of the Petitions to each exporter (as named in the
Petitions), consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of citric acid from Belgium, Colombia, and/or
Thailand are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a
U.S. industry.\55\ A negative ITC determination for any country will
result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that
country.\56\ Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (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). Any party, when submitting
factual information, must 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. Time limits for the
submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301,
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations
prior to
[[Page 29833]]
submitting factual information in these investigations.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise
specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be
considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due
from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date.
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension
requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension
of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual
information in these investigations.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\57\
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.\58\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\58\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 these investigations
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: June 22, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix--Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations includes all
grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and
potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in
solution, and regardless of packaging type. The scope also includes
blends of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as
well as blends with other ingredients, such as sugar, where the
unblended form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium
citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of the blend.
The scope also includes all forms of crude calcium citrate,
including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate
tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the production of
citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate.
The scope includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric
acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise
known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and
monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also
includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate which are
also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium
salt, respectively.
The scope does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the
standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been
mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where
the excipient constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, of the
product.
Citric acid and sodium citrate are classifiable under
2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium citrate and crude
calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000 and, if included
in a mixture or blend, 3824.99.9295 of the HTSUS. Blends that
include citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are
classifiable under 3824.99.9295 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017-13823 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
