[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 54 (Monday, March 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13495-13497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6295]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-878
Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from
the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the period July 1,
2008, through June 30, 2009. This administrative review covers one
exporter of the subject merchandise, i.e., Kaifeng Xinhua Fine Chemical
Factory (``Kaifeng'').
We preliminarily determine that Kaifeng does not qualify for a
separate rate and is instead part of the PRC entity. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
exported by Kaifeng during the period of review (``POR''). We invite
interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 22, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Petelin or Charles Riggle, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
8173 or (202) 482-0650, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 9, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC.\1\ On June 8,
2009, the Department published in the Federal Register the continuation
of antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC.\2\ On July 1,
2009, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Saccharin from
the PRC.\3\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the following
requests were made regarding the POR July 1, 2008, through June 30,
2009: (1) on July 31, 2009, Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd.
(``Shanghai Fortune''), a Chinese producer and exporter of subject
merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative
review of its exports; (2) on July 31, 2009, Kinetic Industries, Inc.
(``Kinetic''), a domestic producer of saccharin, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of Kaifeng's exports to the
United States. Pursuant to this request, the Department published a
notice of initiation with respect to Shanghai Fortune and Kaifeng.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Saccharin from the
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 40906 (July 9, 2003) (``Saccharin
Order'').
\2\ See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order on Saccharin from
the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 27089 (June 8, 2009).
\3\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 74 FR 31406 (July 1, 2009).
\4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR
42873 (August 25, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), on August 28, 2009,
Shanghai Fortune timely withdrew its request for an administrative
review of its own exports (i.e., within 90 days of the publication of
the notice of initiation of this review). No other party requested an
administrative review of Shanghai Fortune's exports to the United
States. Therefore, on November 3, 2009, the Department rescinded the
administrative review of saccharin with respect to Shanghai Fortune.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
56792 (November 3, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Kaifeng, the Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire on October 2, 2009. On October 14, 2009, we confirmed
that Kaifeng signed for and received our mailing of the antidumping
duty questionnaire. On January 6, 2009, the Department placed the FedEx
International Air Waybill receipt and delivery confirmation for the
questionnaire issued to Kaifeng on the record of this administrative
review to confirm that we mailed, and Kaifeng signed for and received,
the questionnaire.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this antidumping duty order is saccharin.
Saccharin is defined as a non-nutritive sweetener used in beverages and
foods, personal care products such as toothpaste, table top sweeteners,
and animal feeds. It is also used in metalworking fluids. There are
four primary chemical compositions of saccharin: (1) Sodium saccharin
(American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (``CAS'') Registry
128-44-44); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS Registry 6485-34-34); (3) acid
(or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81-07-07); and (4) research
grade saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced and imported grades of
saccharin from the PRC are sodium and calcium saccharin, which are
available in granular, powder, spray-dried powder, and liquid forms.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under
subheading 2925.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'') and includes all types of saccharin imported under
this HTSUS subheading, including research and specialized grades.
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this
order remains dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In
[[Page 13496]]
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an NME
country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering
authority. Because no interested party in this case has contested such
treatment, the Department continues to treat the PRC as an NME country.
PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Available
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign
all exporters of subject merchandise, subject to review in an NME
country, a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a
separate rate.\6\ We have determined that Kaifeng does not qualify for
a separate rate and is instead subject to the PRC-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 74764, 74765 (December 16, 2005);
unchanged in Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In relevant part, section 776(a) of the Act provides that the
Department shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' (``FA'') if ``(1)
necessary information is not on the record, or (2) an interested party
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been
requested,'' or ``(B) fails to provide information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department,
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act.''
Further, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may
make an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available
when a party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information.'' Adverse inferences
are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.''\7\ Finally, according to section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.308(c)(1), such an adverse inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2009, the Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to Kaifeng. We confirmed that the questionnaire was
delivered and signed for on October 14, 2009.\8\ Because Kaifeng did
not respond to the Department's questionnaire, we are unable to
determine if Kaifeng is eligible for a separate rate. Kaifeng has not
rebutted the presumption of government control and is, therefore,
presumed to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Further, in accordance with
sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, because the PRC-entity
(including Kaifeng) failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by
not responding to our questionnaire, we find it appropriate to use
adverse facts available. As a result, in accordance with the
Department's practice, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-entity
(including Kaifeng) a rate of 329.94 percent, the highest rate
determined in the current, or any previous, segment of this
proceeding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Memorandum Regarding: 2008-2009 Antidumping
Administrative Review of Saccharin from the PRC: Kaifeng
Questionnaire Delivery Confirmation on the Record, dated January 6,
2010 (``Delivery Confirmation Memo'').
\9\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products
from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than information obtained in the course
of a review, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal.
According to the Statement of Administrative Action, secondary
information is defined as ``information derived from the petition that
gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination
concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section
751 concerning the subject merchandise.''\10\ To ``corroborate'' means
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information
has probative value. The Department will, to the extent practicable,
examine the reliability and relevance of the secondary information
used.\11\ Further, independent sources used to corroborate may include,
for example, published price lists, official import statistics and
customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during
the particular investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See SAA at 870.
\11\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the instant review, we are applying to the PRC-wide entity
(which includes Kaifeng) the PRC-wide rate that was corroborated in the
underlying investigation of sales at less than fair value.\12\ We find
that this rate remains contemporaneous with the POR of this review, and
no evidence has been presented in the current review that calls into
question the reliability of this information.\13\ Thus, the Department
finds that the rate information is reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR
27530 (May 30, 2003) (``LTFV Final Determination''); as amended by
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 68 FR 35383 (June 13, 2003) (``The PRC-wide rate of 329.94
percent . . . is the correct PRC-wide rate, rather than the rate of
329.33 percent published in the [LTFV Final Determination].''); see
also Saccharin Order (establishing 329.94 percent as the PRC-wide
rate).
\13\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New
Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304, 41308 (July 11,
2003) (where the Department relied on the corroboration memorandum
from the LTFV Investigation to assess the reliability of the
petition rate as the basis for an adverse facts available rate in
the administrative review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, regarding relevance, the Department will consider
information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin
continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the
selected margin is not appropriate, the Department will disregard the
margin and establish an appropriate margin. Similarly, the Department
does not apply a margin that has been discredited.\14\ No unusual
circumstances are present here. Since the LTFV investigation, no new
information has indicated that this rate is invalid or uncharacteristic
of the saccharin industry. Further, this rate has been used as the PRC-
wide rate in other segments of this proceeding. Therefore, we find that
this rate has probative value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1221
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been
judicially invalidated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the PRC-wide entity rate from the LTFV investigation is both
reliable and relevant, we determine that this rate, the
[[Page 13497]]
highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding (i.e.,
the rate of 329.94 percent), is in accord with section 776(c) of the
Act, which requires that secondary information be corroborated. Thus,
the Department finds that the LTFV investigation rate is corroborated
for the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be
applied to the PRC-wide entity based on Kaifeng's failure to cooperate
to the best of its ability in this administrative review.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping
margin exists for the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity*.................................... 329.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The PRC-entity includes Kaifeng Xinhua Fine Chemical Factory
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within ten
days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues
raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days
after the time limit for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
The Department requests that parties submitting written comments
provide an executive summary and a table of authorities as well as an
additional copy of those comments electronically.
Any interested party may request a hearing within ten days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Hearing requests
should contain the following information: (1) the party's name,
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be
limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is
made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to
be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include its analysis of any written comments, no
later than 120 days after the publication date of these preliminary
results. See 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the PRC-wide
entity (which includes Kaifeng), the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-
wide rate established in the final results of review; (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not
listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate of 329.94 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 16, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-6295 Filed 3-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S