Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances; Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-824]

Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances;

Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Easton or Steve Alley, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

1777 or (202) 482-5288, respectively.

PRELIMINARY CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINATION: The Department of

Commerce (DOC) published its preliminary determination of sales at less

than fair value in this investigation on December 8, 1993 (58 FR

64549). On March 1, 1994, petitioner in this investigation alleged that

critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of silicon carbide

from the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Since this allegation regarding critical circumstances was filed

later than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary

determination, 19 CFR 353.16(b)(2)(ii) requires that we issue our

preliminary critical circumstances determination not later than 30 days

after the allegation was filed.

Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

``Act''), provides that the Department will determine that there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances

exist if:

(A) (i) There is a history of dumping in the United States or

elsewhere of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of

the investigation, or

(ii) The person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was

imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the

merchandise which is the subject of the investigation at less than its

fair value, and

(B) There have been massive imports of the class or kind of

merchandise which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively

short period.

History of Dumping

In this investigation, the first criterion of analysis is addressed

in Petitioner's March 1, 1994 submission. Petitioner established that

there is a history of dumping of silicon carbide by the PRC by

providing documentation concerning both a 1986 finding of dumping and a

1993 review of antidumping measures in the European Community. (See

Exhibits 1-3 of petitioner's March 1, 1994 submission).

Inasmuch as we have determined that there is a history of dumping

of the subject merchandise, the Department does not need to determine

whether the importers of this merchandise knew, or should have known,

that the merchandise was being sold at less than fair value.

Massive Imports

Having preliminarily found that there is a history of dumping of

the subject merchandise, we need to consider whether the imports of the

merchandise have been massive.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.16(f) and 353.16(g), the Department

considers the following when determining whether imports have been

massive over a relatively short period of time:

(1) Volume and value of the imports;

(2) Seasonal trends (if applicable); and

(3) The share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports.

When examining volume and value data, the Department typically

compares the export volume for equal periods immediately preceding and

following the filing of the petition (the ``pre-filing period'' and the

``post-filing period''). Under 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), unless the imports

in the comparison period have increased by at least 15 percent over the

imports during the base period, the imports will not be considered to

be ``massive.''

To determine whether there have been massive imports over a

relatively short period of time, the Department examines shipment

information submitted by the respondent or import statistics, when

respondent-specific shipment information is not available. On March 4,

1994, the Department sent letters to respondents requesting information

regarding shipments of silicon carbide for the period of January 1991

to December 1993. All six participating respondents in this

investigation submitted the requested shipment information.

Our analysis is based on the company-specific information supplied

by respondents. Because the timing of the allegation (after the

completion of verification and close to the scheduled date for the

final determination) precluded on-site verification of this

information, the Department also referred to U.S. Customs IM-115 entry

data to corroborate respondents' reported shipment information,

pursuant to section 771(18)(E) of the Act.

To determine whether there have been massive imports of silicon

carbide, we compared export volumes for the five months subsequent to

the filing of the petition (July through November 1993) to the five

months prior to the filing of the petition (February through June

1993). This period of review was selected on the basis of the

Department's practice of using the longest period for which information

is available up until the effective date of the preliminary

determination (which in this investigation was December 8, 1993). We

were unable to consider changes in import penetration, pursuant to 19

CFR 353.16(f)(1)(iii), because the available data did not permit an

analysis of the post-filing period. Nevertheless, based on respondents'

shipment information and U.S. Customs entry data, we find that imports

of silicon carbide from the PRC have been massive over a relatively

short period for two of the respondents in this investigation--Shaanxi

Minmetals (Shaanxi) and Xiamen Abrasives Company (Xiamen). Our finding

is based on determining that imports from Shaanxi and Xiamen increased

more than 15% during the five month post-filing period. The other four

respondents in this investigation--Seventh Grinding Wheel Factory

Import and Export Corporation, Import/Export Trading Corporation of

Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Qinghai Metals and Minerals Import

and Export Corporation, and Hainan Feitian Electrontech Company,

Limited--were not responsible for massive imports. (For a summary of

our calculations, see memo to the file of March 28, 1994). For the

Chinese exporters that did not respond to the Department's

questionnaire, we find that imports of silicon carbide from the PRC

were massive, based on the best information otherwise available (BIA).

In conclusion, given that (1) there has been a history of dumping,

and (2) imports from certain respondents have been massive, we

preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for two

respondents in this investigation--Shaanxi and Xiamen. We also

preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for all exporters

who did not participate in this investigation.

FINAL CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINATION: We will make a final

determination concerning critical circumstances when we make our final

determination in this investigation, i.e., by April 22, 1994.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the

ITC of our determination.

Public Comment

Since this preliminary critical circumstances determination is

being made after the due date for case briefs in this investigation, we

will accept written comments on this preliminary determination of

critical circumstances until April 4, 1994; rebuttal comments must be

submitted no later than April 5, 1994.

This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the

Act.

Dated: March 31, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-8491 Filed 4-7-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P