Final Result of Expedited Sunset Review: Solid Urea from Romania

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-485-601]

Final Result of Expedited Sunset Review: Solid Urea from Romania

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Result of Expedited Sunset Review on Solid Urea

from Romania.

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

SUMMARY: On March 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order

on solid urea from Romania pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of a notice of intent

to participate and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of the

domestic interested parties and inadequate response (in this case, no

response) from respondent interested parties, the Department determined

to conduct an expedited sunset review. As a result of this review, the

Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels

indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G.

Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. &

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050

or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

This review was conducted pursuant to section 751(c) and 752 of the

Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are

set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews

of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20,

1998) (``Sunset Regulations''). Guidance on methodological or

analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset

reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies

Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping

and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16,

1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').

Scope

The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is solid urea

from Romania. Solid urea is a high-nitrogen content fertilizer which is

produced by reacting ammonia with carbon dioxide. During the original

investigation the merchandise was classified under item number 480.3000

of the Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (``TSUSA''). This

merchandise is currently classifiable under item number 3102.10.00 of

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS''). The HTS item number is

provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description

of the scope remains dispositive.

History of the Order

On May 26, 1987, the Department issued its final determination that

solid urea from Romania was being sold in the United States at less-

than-fair-value. The weighted-average dumping margin

[[Page 48361]]

was 90.71 percent.1 On July 14, 1987, the Department's

antidumping duty order was published.2

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

\1\ See Urea From the Socialist Republic of Romania; Final

Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value, 52 FR 19557 (May 26,

1987).

\2\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Urea From the Socialist Republic

of Romania, 52 FR 26367 (July 14, 1987).

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

The Department has conducted one administrative review since the

issuance of this order, covering the period January 1987 through June

1988, and found no shipments.3 The order remains in effect

for all Romanian producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. We

note that, to date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption

findings in this case.

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

\3\ See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;

Solid Urea From Romania, 54 FR 39558 (September 27, 1989).

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

Background

On March 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the

antidumping order on solid urea from Romania pursuant to section 751(c)

of the Act. On March 16, 1999, the Department received a Notice of

Intent to Participate on behalf of Agrium US, Inc. (``Agrium'') and

from the members of the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen Producers

4 (the ``Committee''), collectively the (``domestic

parties''), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i)

of the Sunset Regulations. We received complete substantive responses

from the domestic parties, within the 30-day deadline specified in the

Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). The domestic parties

claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as

United States producers, manufacturers, or wholesalers of the domestic

like product. The Department did not receive a response from any

respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and our regulations (19 C.F.R.

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), we are conducting an expedited sunset review

on this order.

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

\4\ The Committee maintains that it is comprised of a coalition

of U.S. producers of nitrogen fertilizers and identifies its current

members : CF Industries, Inc., Costal Chemical, Inc., Mississippi

Chemical Corp., PCS Nitrogen, Inc., and Terra Industries, Inc. The

Committee notes that J.R. Simplot Co. is a Committee member, but not

producer of solid urea. See Substantive Response of the Committee,

March 30, 1999, at 1 and 2.

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

On July 6, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset review

of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from Romania is

extraordinarily complicated. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v)

of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily

complicated if it is a review of a transition order (i.e., an order in

effect on January 1, 1995). See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. As a

result of this determination, the Department extended the time limit

for completion of the final results of this review until not later than

August 30, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the

Act.5

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

\5\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year

Reviews, 54 FR 36333 (July 6, 1999).

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

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department

conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the

antidumping order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in making this

determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-average

dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews

and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period

before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping duty order,

and it shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the

Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail

if the order is revoked.

The Department's determinations concerning continuation or

recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed below.

In addition, the domestic interested parties' comments with respect to

the continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the

margin are addressed within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history

accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically

the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No.

103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1

(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the

Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on

methodological and analytical issues, including the basis for

likelihood determinations. The Department indicated that determinations

of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2

of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). In addition, the Department normally

will determine that revocation of an antidumping order is likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping where (a) dumping

continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the

order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance

of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the

order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined

significantly (see section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).

In addition to considering the guidance on likelihood cited above,

section751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall

determine that revocation of an order is likely to lead to continuation

or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested party waives it

participation in the sunset review. In the instant review, the

Department did not receive a response from any respondent interest

party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset

Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.

In their substantive responses the domestic parties assert that

revocation of the antidumping duty order of solid urea from Romania

would likely result in the continuation or resumption of dumping. The

domestic parties argue that imports of the subject merchandise ceased

after the issuance of the order and provide import statistics to

support their claim.

The domestic parties maintain that the Department should conclude

that because imports of Romanian urea into the United States ceased

after the issuance of the order, Romanian producers and exporters

cannot sell solid urea in the U.S. markets without dumping.

In addition, the domestic parties argue that the dumping margin of

90.71 percent has remained unchanged since the investigation. The

domestic parties assert that no Romanian urea producer or exporter has

ever sought a review to obtain a reduced margin. Therefore, the

domestic parties assert, the magnitude and longevity of the original

antidumping margin indicates that Romania urea cannot be sold in the

U.S. market at non-dumped prices.

For the reasons stated above, the domestic parties conclude that if

the order on solid urea from Romania be revoked, there is likelihood of

continuation and recurrence of dumping.

As discussed in Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, existence of dumping margins

after the order is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of dumping. Further, if imports ceased after the order is

issued, it is reasonable to assume that the exporters could not sell in

the United States without

[[Page 48362]]

dumping and that to reenter the U.S. market, they would have to resume

dumping. In this case we find that imports ceased after the issuance of

the order and dumping margins continued to exist. Therefore, given that

imports ceased, dumping margins continue to exist, respondent

interested parties waived their right to participate in this review,

and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department

determines that dumping of solid urea from Romania is likely to

continue or recur if the order were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will

normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in

the final determination in the original investigation. Further, for

companies not specifically investigated, or for companies that did not

begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department

normally will provide a margin based on the country-wide rate from the

investigation. (See section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)

Exceptions to this policy permit the use of a more recently calculated

margin, when appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption

determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin.)

With respect to the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if

the antidumping duty orders were revoked, the domestic parties argue

that the Department should provide the Commission the dumping margin

from the final results of the original investigation, 90.71 percent.

The domestic parties assert that this margin is the only rate that has

been calculated by the Department and it is the only rate that reflects

the behavior of Romanian producers and exporters of urea without the

discipline of the order.

The Department agrees with the domestic parties concerning the

choice of the dumping margin to report to the Commission. In our final

determination of sales at less-than-fair-value, we reported a weighted-

average dumping margin of 90.71 percent for I.C.E. Chimica ( the only

company investigated) and for all others. Therefore, consistent with

the Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin we determine that the original

margin, is probative of the behavior of the Romanian producers and

exporters of solid urea if the order were revoked. We will report to

the Commission the rate from the original investigation contained in

the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of

the antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

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

Margin

Manufacturers/ Exporters (percent)

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

I.C.E. Chimica............................................. 90.71

All Others................................................. 90.71

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

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations.

Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to

comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are published in

accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: August 30, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-23048 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P