Final Result of Expedited Sunset Review: Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-098]

Final Result of Expedited Sunset Review: Anhydrous Sodium

Metasilicate From France

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final result of expedited sunset review: Anhydrous

sodium metasilicate from France.

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

SUMMARY: On October 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the

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

anhydrous sodium metasilicate from France (63 FR 52683) pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On

the bases of the notice of intent to participate and substantive

comments filed on behalf of the domestic industry, and inadequate

responses (in this case, no response) from respondent interested

parties, the Department determined to conduct an expedited 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: Scott E. Smith or Melissa G. Skinner,

Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade

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

Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397 or (202)

482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 1999.

Statute and Regulations: This review was conducted pursuant to

sections 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 this antidumping duty order is

anhydrous sodium metasilicate (``ASM''), a crystallized silicate (Na2

SiO3) 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. The Department determined that ASM mixed

with caustic soda beads or with sodium tripolyphosphate is within the

scope of the order.1 This merchandise is currently

classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) item numbers 2839.11.00 and 2839.19.00. The HTSUS

item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only.

They are not determinative of the products subject to the order. The

written description remains dispositive.

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

\1\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results

of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 15620

(April 12, 1982).

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

This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of ASM from

France.

Background: On October 1, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset

review of the antidumping duty order on ASM from France (63 FR 52683),

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice

of Intent to Participate on behalf of PQ Corporation (``PQ'') within

the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. PQ claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C)

of the Act, section 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(E), as a manufacturer, producer,

or wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like product. On

October 29, 1998, PQ Corporation requested an extension of time for

submission of its substantive response to the notice of initiation and

was granted an extension until November 3, 1998 (see October 30, 1998,

letter from Acting Director, Office of Policy). On October 30, 1998, we

received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Occidental

Chemical Corporation (``Occidental''), which claimed interested party

status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(E), as a

manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a

domestic like product. We received a complete substantive response from

PQ on November 3, 1998, within the extended deadline. PQ's substantive

response contained a letter of support from Occidental. We did not

receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party to

this sunset proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B)

of the Act and our regulations (19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), we

determined to conduct an expedited review.

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

Department conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the

antidumping duty order would be likely to 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 margin are discussed below. In

addition, parties' comments with respect to continuation or recurrence

of dumping and the magnitude of margin are

[[Page 5632]]

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

clarified that determinations of likelihood will be made on an order-

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

Additionally, 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).

On January 7, 1981, an antidumping duty order on ASM from France

was published in the Federal Register (46 FR 1667). Since that time,

the Department has conducted a number of administrative reviews on this

order.2 The order remains in effect for all imports of the

subject merchandise from France.

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

\2\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results

of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 15620

(April 2, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final

Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR

44594 (October 8, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;

Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 49

FR 43733 (October 31, 1984); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From

France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53

FR 4195 (February 12, 1988); Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France, 52

FR 33856 (September 8, 1987); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From

France; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53

FR 9785 (March 25, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 43251

(October 26, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 50788

(December 11, 1989); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 42979

(August 30, 1991); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 49684

(November 3, 1992); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 51615

(October 4, 1993); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 8631

(February 15, 1995); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 30852

(June 18, 1996); and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 44038

(August 27, 1996).

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

In its substantive response, PQ stated that following the

imposition of the antidumping duty, Rhone Poulenc/Rhodia ceased

exporting ASM from France. PQ noted that Rhone Poulenc/Rhodia kept its

sales network in place as well as much of its distribution network and

entered into an agreement with a U.S. producer to distribute U.S.-

manufactured ASM to fill out its product line. PQ stated that Rhone

Poulenc/Rhodia has excess ASM production capacity. PQ argued,

therefore, that absent the existence of the order, Rhodia will resume

exporting ASM from France. PQ asserted that because demand for ASM has

been decreasing over time and there is excess production capacity in

the United States as well as Europe, any market shift would most likely

be due to a lower price offered by the seller of the imported product.

PQ further asserted that, because of the low value-to-weight ratio, and

because of the high cost of freight for ASM, all things being equal, no

French producer could compete in the U.S. market without sales at less

than fair value.

As noted above, the Department has conducted several administrative

reviews of this order covering the only known exporter Rhone-Poulenc.

In the administrative reviews of the periods spanning November 1, 1980

through December 31, 1981, January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1988,

and January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990, the Department found no

shipments of ASM from France.3 Further, because Rhone-

Poulenc did not respond to questionnaires in the administrative reviews

of the periods spanning January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1995, the

Department has no information from the reviews with respect to whether

there were any imports of ASM from France.4 Finally, the

Department terminated the administrative reviews of the periods

spanning January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997, based on the

absence of entries.5

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

\3\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results

of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 15620

(April 12, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final

Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR

44594 (October 8, 1982); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 9785

(March 25, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 43251

(October 26, 1988); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 50788

(December 11, 1989); and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 42979

(August 30, 1991).

\4\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 49684 (November 3,

1992); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 51615 (October 4,

1993); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 8631 (February 15,

1995); Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 30852 (June 18, 1996);

and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 44038 (August 27,

1996).

\5\ See Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France; Notice of

Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 43701

(August 15, 1997); and Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From France;

Notice of Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

31179 (June 10, 1998).

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

We find, therefore, that the cessation of imports after the

issuance of the order is highly probative of the likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of dumping. Furthermore, deposit rates above

de minimis levels continue to be in effect for all shipments of the

subject merchandise from France. As discussed in section II.A.3. of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64,

if imports cease after the order is issued, we may reasonably assume

that exporters could not sell in the United States without dumping and

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

Therefore, absent argument and evidence to the contrary, given that

shipments of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of the

order, and that dumping margins continue to exist, the Department,

consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin,

determines that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the

antidumping duty 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

``all others'' rate from the investigation. (See

[[Page 5633]]

section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) Exceptions to this

policy include the use of a more recently calculated margin, where

appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption determinations. (See

sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)

In the Department's final determination of sales at less than fair

value on ASM from France, the Department established an antidumping

margin of 60.00 percent (see Anhydrous Sodium Metasillicate From

France--Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 45 FR

77498 (November 24, 1980) and Anhydrous Sodium Metasillicate From

France; Antidumping Duty Order, 46 FR 1667 (January 7, 1981)).

In its substantive response, PQ asserted that because of the high

cost of freight for ASM, no French producer could compete in the U.S.

market without having sales at less than fair value. Although PQ did

not specify the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order

were revoked, it submitted information for ``computations of export

price or constructed export price and normal value, based on realistic

assumption.'' (See Substantive Response of PQ, November 2, 1998, at 2

and attachment.)

The SAA at 891, House Report at 64, and section 351.218(e)(2)(i) of

the Sunset Regulations provide that, only in the context of a full

sunset review and only under the most extraordinary circumstances will

the Department rely on a countervailing duty rate or dumping margin

other than those it calculated and published in its prior

determinations. The Department, on the basis of inadequate responses

(in this case, no response), determined to conduct an expedited review

of this duty order. Only in full reviews will the Department consider

the calculation of new margins. Further, even if the Department had

determined to conduct a full review of this order, it is not persuaded

by the evidence presented by PQ that such extraordinary circumstances

exist in this case as to warrant the calculation of a new dumping

margin.

Therefore, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine

that the original margin we calculated, which reflects the behavior of

exporters without the discipline of the order, is probative of the

behavior of the French producers and exporters of ASM. The Department

will report to the Commission the company-specific and ``all others''

rate at the levels indicated 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 duty order would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated

below.

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

Margin

Manufacturers/exporters (percent)

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

Rhone-Poulenc................................................ 60.00

All Others................................................... 60.00

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

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 in accordance

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

Dated: January 29, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-2676 Filed 2-3-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P