Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-098]

Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from a domestic interested party, the

Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on anhydrous sodium metasilicate from France for

the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.

We have preliminarily determined a dumping margin in this review.

If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this

administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on subject merchandise manufactured or exported by

Rhone-Poulenc, S.A.

We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 23, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacey King or Mark Ross, Office of

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482-1757/4784.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the

Department's) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR

Part 351 (1998).

Background

On January 14, 1999, the Department published a notice of

``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (64 FR 2470) with

respect to the antidumping duty order on anhydrous sodium metasilicate

(ASM) from France. The petitioner, PQ Corporation, requested a review

of Rhone-Poulenc, S.A. on January 21, 1999. In response to PQ

Corporation's request, the Department published a notice of initiation

of an administrative review on February 22, 1999 (63 FR 20378), in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by the review are shipments of ASM, a crystallized

silicate which is alkaline and readily soluble in water. Applications

include waste paper de-inking, ore-flotation, bleach stabilization,

clay processing, medium or heavy duty cleaning, and compounding into

other detergent formulations. This merchandise is classified under

HarmonizedTariff Schedules (HTS) item numbers 2839.11.00 and

2839.19.00. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Period of Review

The period of review is from January 1, 1998, through December 31,

1998.

Facts Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party

(1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department,

(2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form

or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the

Act, (3) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping

statute, or (4) provides such information but the information cannot be

verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, then the Department

shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise

available in determining dumping margins.

The Department sent Rhone-Poulenc a questionnaire on March 1, 1999,

with a deadline of April 7, 1999, for providing information necessary

to conduct a review of any shipments that the firm may have made to the

United States during the period of review. Rhone-Poulenc did not

respond to our original questionnaire or to a follow-up letter that we

sent to the company. Because Rhone-Poulenc has withheld information we

requested and has, in fact, made no effort to participate in this

proceeding, we must, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (D) of the

Act, use facts otherwise available to determine its dumping margins.

Based on the lack of any response from Rhone-Poulenc, we find that

the company has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for information. Therefore, pursuant

to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an inference that

is adverse to the interests of Rhone-Poulenc in selecting from among

the facts otherwise available. This section also provides that an

adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the

petition, the final determination in the investigation segment of the

proceeding, a previous review under section 751 of the Act or a

determination under section 753 of the Act, or any other information

placed on the record. In addition, the Statement of Administrative

Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994)

(SAA), establishes that the Department may employ an adverse inference

``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by

failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' SAA at 870. In

employing adverse inferences, the Department is instructed to consider

``the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of

cooperation.'' Id. Because we find that Rhone-Poulenc failed to

cooperate by not complying with our request for information and in

order to ensure that it does not benefit from its lack of cooperation,

we are employing an adverse inference in selecting from the facts

available.

The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among

the possible sources of information has been to ensure that the margin

is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts

available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with

complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static

Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).

The Department will also consider the extent to which a party may

benefit from its own lack of cooperation in selecting a rate. See

Roller Chain Other Than Bicycle, From Japan; Notice of Final Results

and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

69472, 69477 (November 10, 1997), and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53820-21 (October 16, 1997).

[[Page 45950]]

In order to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse so as to

induce Rhone-Poulenc's cooperation, we have assigned this company as

adverse facts available a rate of 60.0 percent, the margin calculated

in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation using

information provided by Rhone-Poulenc, S.A. (see Anhydrous Sodium

Metasilicate from France; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 45 FR 77498 (November 24, 1980)).

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for

facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its

disposal. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding, such as

that used here, constitutes secondary information. The SAA provides

that to ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.

SAA at 870. As explained 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;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and

Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392

(November 6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the

Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and

relevance of the information used.

Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling

expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department

can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is

administrative determinations. In an administrative review, if the

Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated

dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time

period.

With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the

Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to

whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not

relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard

the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see Fresh Cut Flowers

from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,

61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded the

highest dumping margin as adverse BIA because the margin was based on

another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin). There is no evidence of circumstances

indicating that the margin used as facts available in this review is

not appropriate. Therefore, the requirements of section 776(c) of the

Act are satisfied.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines

that a margin of 60 percent exists for Rhone Poulenc for the period

January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.

Interested parties may request a hearing not later than 30 days

after publication of this notice. Interested parties may also submit

written arguments in case briefs on these preliminary results within 30

days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs,

limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than

five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who

submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement

of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held three days after the scheduled date for

submission of rebuttal briefs.

The Department will publish the final results of this

administrative review, including a discussion of its analysis of issues

raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. The Department

will issue final results of this review within 120 days of publication

of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of the final results in this review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The rate will be assessed uniformly

on all entries of Rhone-Poulenc merchandise made during the period of

review. The Department will issue appraisement instructions for Rhone-

Poulenc merchandise directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the

final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Rhone-Poulenc,

S.A., will be the rate established in the final results of this review;

(2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be

the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of

this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 60.0 percent, the

``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (45 FR 77498,

November 24, 1980). This deposit rate, when imposed, shall remain in

effect until publication of the final results of the next

administrative review.

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.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: August 9, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-21841 Filed 8-20-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P