65 FR 25906, May 4, 2000 A-570-830 Sunset Review Public Document MEMORANDUM TO: Troy H. Cribb Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration FROM: Jeffrey A. May Director Office of Policy SUBJECT: Issues and Decision Memo for the Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Coumarin from the People's Republic of China; Final Results Summary We have analyzed the substantive response of interested parties in the expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty order on coumarin from the People's Republic of China ("China"). We recommend that you approve the positions we have developed in the Discussion of the Issues section of this memorandum for these final results. Below is the complete list of the issues in this expedited sunset review for which we received substantive comments. 1. Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping Weighted-average dumping margin Volume of imports 2. Magnitude of the margin likely to prevail Margins from investigation Use of a more recent margin History of the Order: On December 26, 1994, the Department published its final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value ("LTFV") on coumarin from the People's Republic of China ("China")(1). In its antidumping duty order,(2) the Department published weighted-average dumping margins for Jiangsu Native Produce Import & Export Corporation ("Jiangsu") - 31.02 percent, Tianjin Native Produce Import & Export Corporation ("Tianjin") - 70.45 percent, and "all others" - 160.80 percent. Since the issuance of this antidumping duty order, there have been no administrative reviews. However, on March 30, 2000, the Department initiated an administrative review on this order (see 65 FR 16875). The order remains in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise from China. Background: On December 30, 1999, the Department of Commerce ("the Department") published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on coumarin from China.(3) The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Rhodia Inc. ("Rhodia"), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). On January 31, 2000, pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act"), Rhodia claimed interested party status as a U.S. manufacturer of the domestic like product. We received a complete substantive response from Rhodia, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party in this review. As a result, and in accordance with our regulations (19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), the Department determined to conduct an expedited sunset review of this antidumping duty order. Discussion of the Issues In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department conducted this sunset 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. In addition, section 752(c)(3) of the Act provides that the Department shall provide to the International Trade Commission ("the Commission") the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order is revoked. Below we address the comments of interested parties. 1. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping Interested Party Comments: Rhodia argues that revocation of this antidumping duty order would result in continued dumping by producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. Rhodia asserts that dumping margins for all Chinese exporters have not changed since the order was issued, and import volumes have decreased. With respect to dumping margins, Rhodia contends that the margins from the original investigation have remained the same over the history of this order. With respect to import levels, utilizing official import statistics of U.S. Census Bureau, Report 145, Rhodia maintains that the import volumes of the subject merchandise dramatically declined after the issuance of this order.(4) In sum, Rhodia, argues that because dumping margins at levels above de minimis have remained the same since the investigation, and import volumes decreased after the issuance of the order, the Department should determine that revocation of this order would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. Department's Position: 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.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally will determine that revocation of an antidumping duty 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, section 751(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 its participation in the sunset review. In the instant review, the Department did not receive a response from any respondent interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation. We note in the SAA that declining import volumes accompanied by the continued existence of dumping margins after the issuance of the order may provide a strong indication that, absent an order, dumping would be likely to continue, because the evidence would indicate that the exporter needs to dump to sell at pre-order volumes. In this case, our review of U.S. Census Bureau, IM 145 statistic indicates, that, import volumes declined. Further, dumping margins at levels above de minimis continued to exist after the issuance of the order. Therefore, given that dumping at levels above de minimis continued over the life of the order, import volumes of the subject merchandise declined significantly after the imposition of the order, respondent interested parties waived their right to participate in this review, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that dumping would likely continue or recur if the order on coumarin from China were revoked. 2. Magnitude of the margin likely to prevail Interested Party Comments: Rhodia maintains that the Department should provide the Commission the margins from the original investigation, because dumping margins found in the investigation have not changed and there are no other dumping margins but the margins from the investigation. Department's Position: In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department will provide to the Commission the company-specific margin from the investigation because that is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the discipline of an order. 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 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.) As noted above, in the amended order and final determination of less than fair value, the Department established dumping margins of 31.02 percent for Jiangsu Native Produce Import and Export Corporation, 70.45 percent for Tianjin Native Produce Import & Export Corporation, and 160.80 percent for "all others". Consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department finds that the margins calculated in the original investigation are probative of the behavior of Chinese manufacturers/exporters if the orders were revoked as those are the only margins which reflect the behavior of Chinese manufacturers/exporters absent the discipline of the order. The Department will report to the Commission the margins from the original investigation as contained in the Final Results of Review section of this notice. Final Results of Review: We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins: ____________________________________________________________________ Manufacturers/Producers Margin (percent) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Jiangsu Native Produce Import & Export Corp. 31.02 Tianjin Native Produce Import & Export Corp. 70.45 All Others 160.80 ____________________________________________________________________ Recommendation Based on our analysis of the comments received, we recommend adopting all of the above positions. If these recommendations are accepted, we will publish the Final Results of Review in the Federal Register. AGREE X DISAGREE ________ ____________________________________________________________________ footnotes: 1. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coumarin From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 66895 (December 28, 1994). 2. See Notice of Antidumping Order: Coumarin From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 7751 (February 9, 1996), as amended, Amended Order and Final Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigation in Accordance with Decision Upon Remand, 62 FR 8424 (February 25, 1997). 3. See Notice of Initiation of Five-Year ("Sunset") Reviews, 64 FR 73510 (December 30, 1999). 4. See Rhodia's Substantive Response, January 31, 2000, at 4, 5, and Table A.