Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Glycine From the People's Republic of China

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-836]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Glycine From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Strumbel, Office of Countervailing

Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade

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

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

1442.

Final Determination: We determine that imports of glycine from the

People's Republic of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be, sold

in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section

735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated

margin is shown in the ``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation''

section of this notice.

Case History

Since the preliminary determination (59 FR 220, November 16, 1994)

the following events have occurred:

On December 1, 1994, petitioners submitted an allegation of

critical circumstances. On January 3, 1995, the Department made an

affirmative preliminary determination that critical circumstances

exist.

Scope of the Investigation

The product covered by this investigation is glycine which is a

freeflowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is

produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste

enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical

intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. Glycine is currently

classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The scope of this investigation

includes glycine of all purity levels.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and

customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is February 1 through July 31,

1994.

Best Information Available

We sent an antidumping questionnaire to the PRC Ministry of Foreign

Economic Trade and Cooperation (MOFTEC) and we met with the China

Chamber of Commerce for Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and

Exporters (the Chamber) and requested that they: (1) Furnish the

questionnaire to any glycine producers and exporters with U.S. sales

during the POI, and (2) provide a list of those companies that received

the questionnaire. We received a response from the Chamber stating that

no Chinese producers or exporters wanted to participate in the case.

Accordingly, given that the respondents refused to cooperate in the

investigation, we have based our final determination on the best

information available (BIA), in accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act.

The Department's BIA methodology is described in the notice of the

preliminary determination. In this case, BIA is the information

contained in the petition, as amended on July 22, 1994. See Initiation

of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Glycine from the People's Republic

of China (59 FR 38435, July 28, 1994). The amended petition provides a

range of margins, from 86.43 to 155.89 percent for all PRC producers

and exporters of glycine. Because there were no cooperative respondents

in this investigation, we are assigning to all exporters, as BIA, a

margin of 155.89 percent, the highest margin calculated in the

petition.

Critical Circumstances

Petitioners alleged that critical circumstances exist with respect

to imports of glycine from the PRC. In our determination on January 3,

1995, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.16, we

preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist because the

PRC producers and exporters failed to cooperate with this proceeding.

For purposes of this final determination, we have reconsidered our

preliminary determination that failure to cooperate in the

investigation warranted an automatic finding that imports were massive

over a relatively short period. Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department will [[Page 5621]] determine 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.

According to Sec. 353.16(g) of the Department's regulations, we treat

imports as being massive if they increase by 15 percent.

To determine whether PRC glycine imports have been massive over a

relatively short period, we used import statistics from the Bureau of

Census. We were able to use these statistics because the HTSUS

statistical category matches the scope of the investigation (see

Comment 1, below). In addition, although our standard critical

circumstances methodology is based on company specific import data, we

believe that the public information regarding the volume of PRC imports

into the United States is the best available information for

determining whether critical circumstances exist. This is based on the

facts that (1) the subject merchandise is the only merchandise imported

under the relevant HTSUS number and (2) the Department presumes that

all exporters in the PRC are owned or controlled by the PRC government.

Pursuant to Sec. 353.16(g) of the Department's regulations, when

making critical circumstances determinations, the Department normally

compares the period beginning on the first day of the month of the

initiation and ending at least three months later with a comparable

period prior to the initiation. The Department considers the period

immediately prior to a preliminary determination because it is the

period in which exporters of the subject merchandise could take

advantage of the knowledge of the dumping investigation to increase

exports to the United States without being subject to antidumping

duties. See, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value of

Certain Internal-Combustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, (53

FR 12552, April 15, 1988). For purposes of this final determination, we

are comparing the four month period prior to the initiation with the

four month period after the initiation of this investigation.

Based on our analysis of the available monthly import statistics,

we have determined that imports of glycine have not been massive over a

relatively short period of time. The import statistics show that volume

of the imports has increased by only 7.14 percent. Therefore, we find

that the requirements of section 733(e)(1)(B) have not been met with

respect to glycine from the PRC.

Because we find that imports of glycine from the PRC have not been

massive over a relatively short period, we do not need to consider

whether there is a history of dumping or whether importers of this

project knew or should have known that it was being sold at less than

fair value. Therefore, we determine that critical circumstances do not

exist with respect to imports of glycine from the PRC.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1

Kal Kan Foods, an interested party, argues that the Department's

preliminary determination of critical circumstances was unfair and not

in accordance with the Department's precedent. Kal Kan contends that

U.S. glycine importers had no knowledge that the merchandise was being

sold in the United States at less than a fair value. Accordingly to Kal

Kan, the Department's non-market economy (NME) methodology, which uses

surrogate values, is complex and causes the calculated dumping margins

to be unpredictable. Kal Kan further contends that the Department

should use the public information of the Bureau of Census to determine

the existence of massive imports instead of relying on BIA.

Petitioners disagree with the interested party's argument and argue

that the Department should make a final affirmative determination of

critical circumstances based on BIA.

DOC Position

Under the circumstances present in this case, it is possible for

the Department to use public information, such as Census data, to

determine whether imports have been massive over a relatively short

period. In this proceeding, the product under investigation has a

unique HTSUS number, hence, the import statistics only reflect imports

of the subject merchandise. Moreover, in accordance with the

Department's presumption that all exporters in the PRC are owned or

controlled by the government, we view the exporters as a single

company. Given these two factors, the import statistics constitute a

reasonable surrogate for company-specific import data.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

Pursuant to section 735(c)(4) of the Act, we are directing the

Customs Service to cease suspension of liquidation of all entries of

glycine from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption from August 18, 1994, (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of

publication of our preliminary determination in the Federal Register)

to November 15, 1994. However, we are directing the Customs Service to

continue to suspend liquidation for entries of glycine from the PRC

that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or

after November 16, 1994, the date of the publication of the preliminary

determination in the Federal Register. The Customs Service shall

require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to 155.89 percent ad

valorem on all entries of glycine from the PRC. This suspension of

liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the

ITC of our determination. The ITC will now determine, within 45 days,

whether these imports are materially injuring, or threatening material

injury to the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material

injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or

cancelled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the

Department will issue an antidumping order directing Customs officials

to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the

effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to

comply is a violation of the APO.

This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.20(a)(4).

[[Page 5622]] Dated: January 23, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-2235 Filed 1-27-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M