Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Thailand: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 29836-29840 [2017-13824]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29836
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c),
interested parties who wish to request a
hearing, limited to issues raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a
written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce, within 30 days after the date
of publication of this notice. Requests
should contain the party’s name,
address, and telephone number, the
number of participants, whether any
participant is a foreign national, and a
list of the issues to be discussed. If a
request for a hearing is made, the
Department intends to hold the hearing
at the U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
date to be determined. Parties should
confirm by telephone the date, time, and
location of the hearing two days before
the scheduled date.
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Act, the Department intends to
notify the International Trade
Commission (ITC) of its preliminary
affirmative determination. If the final
determination is affirmative, the ITC
will determine before the later of 120
days after the date of this preliminary
determination or 45 days after the final
determination whether these imports
are materially injuring, or threaten
material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Notification to Interested Parties
We intend to issue and publish this
notice in accordance with sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.205(c).
Dated: June 23, 2017.
Ronald Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is softwood lumber, siding,
flooring and certain other coniferous wood
(softwood lumber products). The scope
includes:
• Coniferous wood, sawn, or chipped
lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not
planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or
not finger-jointed, of an actual thickness
exceeding six millimeters.
• Coniferous wood siding, flooring, and
other coniferous wood (other than moldings
and dowel rods), including strips and friezes
for parquet flooring, that is continuously
shaped (including, but not limited to,
tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, Vjointed, beaded, molded, rounded) along any
of its edges, ends, or faces, whether or not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or
not end-jointed.
• Coniferous drilled and notched lumber
and angle cut lumber.
• Coniferous lumber stacked on edge and
fastened together with nails, whether or not
with plywood sheathing.
• Components or parts of semi-finished or
unassembled finished products made from
subject merchandise that would otherwise
meet the definition of the scope above.
Softwood lumber product imports are
generally entered under Chapter 44 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS).18 This chapter of the HTSUS
covers ‘‘Wood and articles of wood.’’
Softwood lumber products that are subject to
this investigation are currently classifiable
under the following ten-digit HTSUS
subheadings in Chapter 44: 4407.10.01.01;
4407.10.01.02; 4407.10.01.15; 4407.10.01.16;
4407.10.01.17; 4407.10.01.18; 4407.10.01.19;
4407.10.01.20; 4407.10.01.42; 4407.10.01.43;
4407.10.01.44; 4407.10.01.45; 4407.10.01.46;
4407.10.01.47; 4407.10.01.48; 4407.10.01.49;
4407.10.01.52; 4407.10.01.53; 4407.10.01.54;
4407.10.01.55; 4407.10.01.56; 4407.10.01.57;
4407.10.01.58; 4407.10.01.59; 4407.10.01.64;
4407.10.01.65; 4407.10.01.66; 4407.10.01.67;
4407.10.01.68; 4407.10.01.69; 4407.10.01.74;
4407.10.01.75; 4407.10.01.76; 4407.10.01.77;
4407.10.01.82; 4407.10.01.83; 4407.10.01.92;
4407.10.01.93; 4409.10.05.00; 4409.10.10.20;
4409.10.10.40; 4409.10.10.60; 4409.10.10.80;
4409.10.20.00; 4409.10.90.20; 4409.10.90.40;
and 4418.99.10.00.
Subject merchandise as described above
might be identified on entry documentation
as stringers, square cut box-spring-frame
components, fence pickets, truss
components, pallet components, flooring,
and door and window frame parts. Items so
identified might be entered under the
following ten-digit HTSUS subheadings in
Chapter 44: 4415.20.40.00; 4415.20.80.00;
4418.99.90.05; 4418.99.90.20; 4418.99.90.40;
4418.99.90.95; 4421.91.70.40; and
4421.91.97.80.
Although these HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of these investigations is dispositive.
The scope of the order excludes the
following items:
U.S.-origin lumber shipped to Canada for
processing and imported into the United
States is excluded from the scope of the
investigations if the processing occurring in
Canada is limited to one or more of the
following: (1) Kiln drying; (2) planing to
create smooth-to-size board; or (3) sanding.
Box-spring frame kits are excluded if they
contain the following wooden pieces—two
side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying
numbers of slats. The side rails and the end
rails must be radius-cut at both ends. The kits
must be individually packaged and must
contain the exact number of wooden
components needed to make a particular box
spring frame, with no further processing
required. None of the components exceeds 1″
in actual thickness or 83″ in length.
18 Throughout
this document, all references to the
HTSUS are based on the HTSUS as it exists at
https://hts.usitc.gov/current.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Radius-cut box-spring-frame components,
not exceeding 1″ in actual thickness or 83″
in length, ready for assembly without further
processing are excluded. The radius cuts
must be present on both ends of the boards
and must be substantially cut so as to
completely round one corner.
Appendix II
List of Topics Discussed in the
Preliminary Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Period of Investigation
IV. Critical Circumstances
V. Scope of the Investigation
VI. Scope Comments
VII. Affiliation and Collapsing of Affiliates
VIII. Discussion of the Methodology
A. Determination of the Comparison
Method
B. Results of the Differential Pricing
Analysis
IX. Product Comparisons
X. Date of Sale
XI. Random-Length Board Sales
XII. Export Price and Constructed Export
Price
XIII. Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
B. Level of Trade
C. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
1. Calculation of COP
2. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices
3. Results of the COP Test
D. Calculation of NV Based on
Comparison-Market Prices
E. Price-to-CV Comparisons
XIV. Currency Conversion
XV. Conclusion
[FR Doc. 2017–13794 Filed 6–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–549–834]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
From Thailand: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective June 22, 2017.
AGENCY:
John
Conniff at (202) 482–1009, AD/CVD
Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Petition
On June 2, 2017, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) received a
countervailing duty (CVD) petition
concerning imports of citric acid and
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
certain citrate salts (citric acid) from
Thailand,1 filed in proper form on
behalf of Archer Daniels Midland
Company (ADM); Cargill Incorporated
(Cargill); and Tate & Lyle Ingredients
Americas LLC (Tate & Lyle)
(collectively, the petitioners). The
Petition was accompanied by
antidumping duty (AD) petitions
concerning imports of citric acid from
Belgium, Colombia and Thailand.2 The
petitioners are domestic producers of
citric acid.3
On June 7, and June 12, 2017, the
Department requested additional
information and clarification of certain
areas of the Petition.4 The petitioners
filed responses to these requests on June
9, and June 14, 2017, respectively.5
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioners allege that
imports of citric acid from Thailand
received countervailable subsidies from
Thai government authorities within the
meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) 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 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those
alleged programs on which we are
initiating a CVD investigation, the
Petition alleged the elements of a
subsidy and provided information
reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed the Petition 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 CVD investigation that
the petitioners are requesting.6
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, at
Volume V (Petition).
2 See Petition, Volumes II–IV.
3 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
4 See Letter to the petitioners from the
Department, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Citric Acid and
Certain Citrate Salts from Thailand: Supplemental
Questions,’’ dated June 7, 2017; see also Letter to
the petitioners from the Department concerning
supplemental questions on general issues, dated
June 12, 2017.
5 See Letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Petitioners’
Responses to Supplemental Questions,’’ dated June
9, 2017; 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 ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions’’ section, below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on June
2, 2017, the period of investigation (POI)
is January 1, 2016, through December
31, 2016.7
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this
investigation is citric acid and certain
citrate salts from Thailand. For a full
description of the scope of this
investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in the Appendix to this
notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, the
Department issues questions to, and
received responses from, the petitioners
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petition would be an accurate 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 this investigation and each of the
concurrent AD investigations.
The Department requests that any
factual information the parties consider
relevant to the scope of this
investigation be submitted during this
time period. However, if a party
subsequently believes that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope of the investigation 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 this
7 See
8 See
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
General Issues Supplement, at 1–4.
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29837
investigation and each of the concurrent
AD 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 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.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of
the Act, the Department notified
representatives of the Royal Thai
Government (RTG) of the receipt of the
Petition. Also, in accordance with
section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
Department provided representatives of
the RTG with an opportunity for
consultations with respect to the
Petition. Consultations with the RTG
were held at the Department’s main
building on June 14, 2017. The
invitation letter and the memorandum
regarding these consultations are on file
electronically via ACCESS.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
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.
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
29838
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
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
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the Petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, the petitioners do not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. 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
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)).
12 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis, see Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate
Salts from Thailand (Thailand CVD Initiation
11 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
In determining whether the
petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
the Petition with reference to the
domestic like product as defined in the
‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ 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
Petition is supported by 100 percent of
the U.S. industry.14
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition, the General Issues Supplement,
and other information readily available
to the Department indicates that the
petitioners have established industry
support for the Petition.15 First, the
Petition 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 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.17 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petition.18 Accordingly, the
Department determines that the Petition
was filed on behalf of the domestic
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). This checklist is dated
concurrently with 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 Petition, 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 Thailand CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
16 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
Thailand CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
17 See Thailand CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
18 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
industry within the meaning of section
702(b)(1) of the Act.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of
the domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the CVD
investigation they are requesting the
Department to initiate.19
Injury Test
Because Thailand is a ‘‘Subsidies
Agreement Country’’ within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,
section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to
this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC
must determine whether imports of the
subject merchandise from Thailand
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that imports of
the subject merchandise are benefitting
from countervailable subsidies and that
such imports are causing, or threaten to
cause, material injury to the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product. In addition, the petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.20 In
CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the
Act provides that imports of subject
merchandise from developing and least
developed countries must exceed the
negligibility threshold of four percent.
The petitioners also demonstrate that
subject imports from Thailand, which
has been designated as developing
country under section 771(36)(A) of the
Act, exceed the negligibility threshold
of four percent.21
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.22 We
have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material
injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and we have determined that
these allegations are properly supported
19 Id.
20 See Volume I of the Petition, at 21–22 and
Exhibit I–12.
21 Id.
22 See Volume I of the Petition, at 17–32 and
Exhibits I–7 and I–9—I–15.
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
by adequate evidence, and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation.23
Initiation of CVD Investigation
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
the Department to initiate a CVD
investigation whenever an interested
party files a CVD petition on behalf of
an industry that: (1) Alleges the
elements necessary for an imposition of
a duty under section 701(a) of the Act;
and (2) is accompanied by information
reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
The petitioners allege that producers/
exporters of citric acid in Thailand
benefit from countervailable subsidies
bestowed by their government. The
Department examined the Petition and
finds that it complies with the
requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the
Act. Therefore, in accordance with
section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are
initiating this CVD investigation to
determine whether manufacturers,
producers, and/or exporters of citric
acid in Thailand receive countervailable
subsidies from Thai government
authorities.
Under the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD law
were made.24 The amendments to
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are
applicable to all determinations made
on or after August 6, 2015, and,
therefore, apply to this CVD
investigation.25
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on all nine alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate on each
program, see the Thailand CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of
the initiation checklist is available on
ACCESS.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination no later than
65 days after the date of this initiation.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Respondent Selection
Based on information from
independent sources, the petitioners
23 See Thailand CVD 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).
24 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).
25 See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794–95.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
identified four companies in Thailand
as producers/exporters of citric acid.26
Following standard practice in CVD
investigations, the Department intends
to review U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports
under the appropriate HTSUS numbers
listed in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in the Appendix, below.
If the Department determines that, due
to the large number of producers or
exporters, it cannot individually
examine each company based on the
Department’s resources, then the
Department will select respondents
based on the CBP data. We 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.
Comments must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically-filed document must be
received successfully, in its entirety, by
ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on
the date noted above. We intend to
finalize our decision regarding
respondent selection within 20 days of
publication of this notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version
of the Petition has been provided to the
RTG via ACCESS. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide
a copy of the public version of the
Petition to each known exporter (as
named in the Petition), consistent with
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petition was filed, whether there is
a reasonable indication that imports of
citric acid from Thailand are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, a U.S. industry.27 A negative ITC
determination will result in the
investigation being terminated.28
26 See
Petitions, Volume I at 30–31.
section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
28 See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
27 See
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29839
Otherwise, this investigation 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
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
Extension of Time Limits Regulation
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
351.301, 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-201309-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
29840
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Notices
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.29
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.30 The
Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate
in this investigation should ensure that
they meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: June 22, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation 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.
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.
30 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jun 29, 2017
Jkt 241001
[FR Doc. 2017–13824 Filed 6–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–863]
Appendix
29 See
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.
Honey From the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With Final Results of Review
and Notice of Amended Final Results
of Review Pursuant to Court Decision
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is notifying the public
that the Court of International Trade’s
(CIT’s or the Court’s) final judgment in
this case is not in harmony with the
Department’s final results of review and
is, therefore, amending the final
dumping duty margin for one reviewed
company.
DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Drury, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 10, 2001, the
Department published an amended final
determination of sales at less than fair
value, and an antidumping duty order,
on honey from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC).1 As part of the
Department’s amended final
determination, the Department made
affirmative critical circumstances
determinations for Zhejiang Native
Produce and Animal By-Products
Import & Export Corp., a.k.a. Zhejiang
Native Produce and Animal By-Products
Import and Export Group Corporation
(Zhejiang), and certain other firms.2
On January 20, 2003, the Department
initiated an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on honey from
the PRC covering the period February
10, 2001, through November 30, 2002.3
In the administrative review, the
Department determined normal value
using a factors of production (FOP)
methodology, pursuant to section 773(c)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act) and selected India as the
primary surrogate country from which
to derive surrogate values.
On May 5, 2004, the Department
published the Final Results.4 On June
10, 2004, the Department published the
Amended Final Results, which
corrected certain ministerial errors.5 In
the Amended Final Results, the
Department corrected the antidumping
duty margin for respondent Zhejiang
from 68.35 percent to 67.70 percent ad
valorem.
Zhejiang challenged the Final Results
and Amended Final Results before the
CIT. On November 19, 2004, the
Department amended the record of the
proceeding to add 11 documents that
were not included in the original
1 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order; Honey from the People’s Republic of
China, 66 FR 63670 (December 10, 2001) (Amended
Final Determination and Order).
2 Id., at 63672.
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Administrative Review and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 3009 (January 22,
2003) (Initiation Notice).
4 See Honey from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 25060 (May 5, 2004),
and the accompanying ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of the First
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Order
on Honey from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated April 28, 2004 (Decision Memorandum)
(collectively, Final Results).
5 See Honey from the People’s Republic of China:
Amended Final Results of First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 32494 (June 10, 2004)
(Amended Final Results).
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29836-29840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13824]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-549-834]
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Thailand: Initiation
of Countervailing Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective June 22, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff at (202) 482-1009, AD/CVD
Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On June 2, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of
citric acid and
[[Page 29837]]
certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Thailand,\1\ filed in proper
form on behalf of Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM); Cargill
Incorporated (Cargill); and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas LLC (Tate
& Lyle) (collectively, the petitioners). The Petition was accompanied
by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of citric acid
from Belgium, Colombia and 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, at Volume V
(Petition).
\2\ See Petition, Volumes II-IV.
\3\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, and June 12, 2017, the Department requested additional
information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.\4\ The
petitioners filed responses to these requests on June 9, and June 14,
2017, respectively.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Letter to the petitioners from the Department,
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Thailand: Supplemental
Questions,'' dated June 7, 2017; see also Letter to the petitioners
from the Department concerning supplemental questions on general
issues, dated June 12, 2017.
\5\ See Letter from the petitioners, ``Petitioners' Responses to
Supplemental Questions,'' dated June 9, 2017; 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 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of citric acid
from Thailand received countervailable subsidies from Thai government
authorities within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) 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 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we
are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition alleged the elements
of a subsidy and provided information reasonably available to the
petitioners supporting the allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petition 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 CVD investigation that the
petitioners are requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions''
section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on June 2, 2017, the period of
investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is citric acid and
certain citrate salts from Thailand. For a full description of the
scope of this investigation, see the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in
the Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, the Department issues questions
to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition 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 this investigation and
each of the concurrent AD investigations.
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of this investigation be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently believes that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigation 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 this
investigation and each of the concurrent AD 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department
notified representatives of the Royal Thai Government (RTG) of the
receipt of the Petition. Also, in accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of
the RTG with an opportunity for consultations with respect to the
Petition. Consultations with the RTG were held at the Department's main
building on June 14, 2017. The invitation letter and the memorandum
regarding these consultations are on file electronically via ACCESS.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic
[[Page 29838]]
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
Petition).
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 investigation. 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
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Citric Acid
and Certain Citrate Salts from Thailand (Thailand CVD 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). This checklist is dated concurrently with 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
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' 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 Petition is supported by
100 percent of the U.S. industry.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Volume I of the Petition, 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 Petition, the General Issues
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for
the Petition.\15\ First, the Petition 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 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product.\17\ Finally, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the Petition.\18\ Accordingly, the Department determines
that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Thailand CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\16\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Thailand CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\17\ See Thailand CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation they
are requesting the Department to initiate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Thailand is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject merchandise from Thailand materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\20\ In CVD petitions, section
771(24)(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from
developing and least developed countries must exceed the negligibility
threshold of four percent. The petitioners also demonstrate that
subject imports from Thailand, which has been designated as developing
country under section 771(36)(A) of the Act, exceed the negligibility
threshold of four percent.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 21-22 and Exhibit I-12.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\22\ We have assessed the allegations
and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material
injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations
are properly supported
[[Page 29839]]
by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 17-32 and Exhibits I-7 and
I-9--I-15.
\23\ See Thailand CVD 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of CVD Investigation
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
The petitioners allege that producers/exporters of citric acid in
Thailand benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by their
government. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it
complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are
initiating this CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers,
producers, and/or exporters of citric acid in Thailand receive
countervailable subsidies from Thai government authorities.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.\24\ The amendments to
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations
made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD
investigation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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).
\25\ See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all nine
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see the Thailand CVD Initiation Checklist.
A public version of the initiation checklist is available on ACCESS.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Respondent Selection
Based on information from independent sources, the petitioners
identified four companies in Thailand as producers/exporters of citric
acid.\26\ Following standard practice in CVD investigations, the
Department intends to review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
data for U.S. imports under the appropriate HTSUS numbers listed in the
``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix, below. If the
Department determines that, due to the large number of producers or
exporters, it cannot individually examine each company based on the
Department's resources, then the Department will select respondents
based on the CBP data. We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Petitions, Volume I at 30-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its
entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above.
We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection
within 20 days of publication of this notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been
provided to the RTG via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will
attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each
known exporter (as named in the Petition), consistent with 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of citric acid from Thailand are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\27\ A
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being
terminated.\28\ Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
\28\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 submitting factual information in this investigation.
Extension of Time Limits Regulation
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, 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
[[Page 29840]]
submitting factual information in this investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\29\
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.\30\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\30\ 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 this investigation should
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the
filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: June 22, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation 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. 2017-13824 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
