U.S. International Trade Commission

Barium Chloride From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review)

 Publication 3702 July 2004 

 

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Stephen Koplan, Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman

Marcia E. Miller

Jennifer A. Hillman

Charlotte R. Lane

Daniel R. Pearson

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Fred Fischer, Investigator

Jack Greenblatt, Industry Analyst

Michael Haldenstein, Attorney

Diane Mazur, Supervisory Investigator

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Barium Chloride From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review)

Publication 3702 July 2004

Invs. Nos. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

i

CONTENTS

Page

Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Information obtained in the second review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

The original investigation and first five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Commerce’s administrative and five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Commerce’s final results of second expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Distribution of continued dumping and subsidy offset funds to affected domestic

producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Description and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

U.S. producer’s trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

U.S. imports and consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

NOTE

Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

Invs. Nos. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c). 

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review)

BARIUM CHLORIDE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States

International Trade Commission determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the

Act),2

 that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from China would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on February 2, 2004 (69 FR 4979), and determined on

May 7, 2004, that it would conduct an expedited review (69 FR 28947, May 19, 2004).

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 1 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”), INV-BB-070, June 3, 2004, at I-7, Public Report (“PR”) at I-6.

 2

 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 3

 Barium Chloride from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Final), USITC Pub. 1584 (October 1984) (“Original

Determination”).

 4

 49 Fed. Reg. 40635 (Oct. 17, 1984).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

BARIUM CHLORIDE FROM CHINA

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review)

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping order on barium chloride from China

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States

within a reasonably foreseeable time.

Barium chloride is a chemical compound having the formula BaCl2 or BaCl2 2H20 and is 

produced in crystalline and anhydrous form. Crystalline barium chloride is used primarily as a cleansing

agent in the production of certain chemicals and lubricating oil additives and a raw intermediate material

in the production of molecular sieves, chemicals, pigments, and paper coatings. The anhydrous form of

barium chloride is used primarily as an ingredient in heat-treating salts and metal fluxes.1

 Only one

domestic company, Chemical Products Corporation (“CPC”), currently makes barium chloride in

commercially significant quantities.

 Apparent U.S. consumption, a proxy for demand, has declined *** since the first review in 1997. 

Apparent U.S. consumption was *** million pounds in 1997, but in 2003 consumption had fallen to ***

million pounds.2

I. BACKGROUND

In October 1984, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being

materially injured by reason of imports of barium chloride from China that were being sold at less than

fair value.3

 On October 17, 1984, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an antidumping

duty order on imports of barium chloride from China.4

 On October 1, 1998, the Commission instituted its

first review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act to determine whether revocation of the antidumping

duty order on barium chloride from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

In five-year reviews, the Commission initially determines whether to conduct a full review

(which would include a public hearing, the issuance of questionnaires, and other procedures) or an

expedited review. In order to make this decision, the Commission first determines whether individual

responses to the notice of institution are adequate. Next, based on those responses deemed individually

adequate, the Commission determines whether the collective responses submitted by two groups of

interested parties – domestic interested parties (such as producers, unions, trade associations, or worker

groups) and respondent interested parties (such as importers, exporters, foreign producers, trade

associations, or subject country governments) – demonstrate a sufficient willingness among each group to

participate and provide information requested in a full review. If the Commission finds the responses
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 5 See 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(a); 63 Fed. Reg. 30599, 30602-05 (June 5, 1998).

 6

 Barium Chloride from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Review), USITC Pub. 3163

(March 1999). Commissioner Crawford dissented and made a negative determination.

 7

 64 Fed. Reg 42654 (Aug. 5, 1999).

 8

 69 Fed. Reg. 4921 (Feb. 2, 2004).

 9

 CR at I-8, PR at I-7.

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 11 69 Fed. Reg. 28947 (May 19, 2004). See also Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, CR/PR

at Appendix B. 

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91

(1979).

4

from both groups of interested parties adequate, or if other circumstances warrant, it will determine to

conduct a full review.5

The only interested party to respond to the notice of institution in the first five-year review was

CPC. Because this response was adequate and no respondent interested parties responded to the notice,

the Commission conducted an expedited review pursuant to section 1675(c)(3)(B) of the Act. The

Commission ultimately determined that revocation of the antidumping order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.6

 Commerce published its notice of continuation of the antidumping order on August 5,

1999.7

The Commission instituted the present review on February 2, 2004.8 The Commission received a

substantive response to the notice of institution from CPC, the domestic producer that accounts for all

significant domestic production of barium chloride.9

 As in its first review, the Commission received no

responses from respondent interested parties. 

On May 7, 2004, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party response was

adequate, but that the respondent interested party response was inadequate. It determined that it would

conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.10 11

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like

product” and the “industry.”12 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or

in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation

under this subtitle.”13

According to Commerce, the merchandise covered by this review is barium chloride from China. 

Barium chloride is a chemical compound having the formula BaCl2 or BaCl2 2H20 and is currently

classified under subheading 2827.39.45 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), a
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 14 In its like product determinations, the Commission generally considers a number of factors including: 

(1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) common manufacturing

facilities, production processes, and production employees; (5) customer or producer perceptions; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. See Timken, 913 F. Supp. at 584. No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may

consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation. The Commission looks for

clear dividing lines among possible like products, and disregards minor variations. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 249, 96th

Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49.

 15 Original Determination at 4. The Commission found that high purity barium chloride produced for laboratory

use was not included in the like product, noting that it was produced “only in very small amounts and at a relatively

high price” and that this form of barium chloride “does not compete for general industrial use with the petitioner’s or

the imported product.” Id., n.8. Commerce, however, has not explicitly excluded high purity barium chloride from

the scope of the order. Thus, the scope of this review appears to include high purity barium chloride.

 16 USITC Pub. 3163 at 4.

 17 CPC’s Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution, March 23, 2004, at 17.

 18 See, e.g. Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1010 (Preliminary), USITC Pub.

3521 (June 2002) at 7 (Commission majority) (noting the only issue was whether there should be one or two like

products).

5

subheading that covers only subject merchandise. The definition of the subject merchandise has not

changed since Commerce’s original determination.

The starting point of the Commission’s like product analysis in a five-year review is the

Commission’s like product determination in the original investigation.14 In its original determination, the

Commission found that there was one like product, consisting of barium chloride, in both its crystalline

and anhydrous forms.15

In the Commission’s first review of the order, the Commission determined that high purity

barium chloride should be included in the definition of the domestic like product. The Commission found

that high purity barium chloride differs from other forms of barium chloride only in that it is, by

definition, higher purity material than that used for industrial purposes. Thus, the Commission concluded

that high purity barium chloride is a product that is covered under Commerce’s scope definition, and as

such should be included in the like product.16

In response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review, CPC argued the Commission

should find one domestic like product but exclude high purity barium chloride as the Commission did in

the original investigation.17 However, the Commission has consistently stated that it is required to include

within its injury analysis domestically produced goods that fall within Commerce’s scope.18 As it appears

that high purity barium chloride falls within Commerce’s scope, we consider it to be part of the definition

of the domestic like product, as we did in the first review of this order.

No new facts have been presented on this record to warrant a conclusion different from that

reached by the Commission in the prior review. We therefore find one domestic like product, coextensive with the scope: all forms of barium chloride including crystalline, anhydrous, and high purity.
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 19 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to

include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively

consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted

in the United States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 20 CR at I-8, PR at I-7.

 21 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 22 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standard

applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury,

or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never

completed.” SAA at 883. 

 23 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 24 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003); Nippon Steel

Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Dec. 24, 2002); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-

152 at 6 n.6 (Dec. 20, 2002); Indorama Chemicals Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20-21 (Sept. 4, 2002);

Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (July 19, 2002). See also Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand

from Japan, Inv. No. AA1921-188 (Review), USITC Pub. 3699 (June 2004).

6

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole

of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”19 In the 1999 review, the

Commission defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of barium chloride. The industry at

that time also only consisted of CPC. Consistent with our domestic like product finding, we define the

domestic industry as all producers of barium chloride, currently identified as the only known commercial

domestic producer, CPC.20

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING ORDER IS REVOKED 

A. Legal Standard In A Five-Year Review

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping order unless: (1) it makes a determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur, and

(2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping order “would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”21 The SAA

states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis; it

must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status

quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on

volumes and prices of imports.”22 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.23 24 The U.S.

Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review provisions of the Act,

means “probable,” and that a Commission determination in such a review would be deemed by the Court
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 25 See NMB Singapore Ltd. V. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003).

 26 See Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 6 n.3 (reference by Commissioners to “more

likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion”), n.6 (Dec. 20, 2002).

 27 Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Lane and Pearson refer to their dissenting views in Pressure

Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004) at 23-25.

 28 Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioner Lane note that, consistent with their views in Pressure Sensitive

Plastic Tape from Italy, USITC Pub. 3698 at 24, they do not concur with the U.S. Court of International Trade’s

interpretation of “likely,” but they will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all subsequent reviews until

either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses this issue.

 29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 30 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 31 In analyzing what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable time, Chairman Koplan examines all the current and

likely conditions of competition in the relevant industry. He defines “reasonably foreseeable time” as the length of

time it is likely to take for the market to adjust to a revocation or termination. In making this assessment, he

considers all factors that may accelerate or delay the market adjustment process including any lags in response by

foreign producers, importers, consumers, domestic producers, or others due to: lead times; methods of contracting;

the need to establish channels of distribution; product differentiation; and any other factors that may only manifest

themselves in the longer term. In other words, this analysis seeks to define “reasonably foreseeable time” by

reference to current and likely conditions of competition, but also seeks to avoid unwarranted speculation that may

occur in predicting events into the more distant future.

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s

determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886. We note that Commerce has made no duty absorption findings.

7

to be in error absent application of this standard.25 The Commission interprets the Court’s standard to

mean that the Commission must revoke an order unless it finds that the continuation or recurrence of

material injury is “more likely than not.”26 27 28 The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that

the effects of revocation or termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a

longer period of time.”29 According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-tocase, but normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis [in

antidumping investigations].”30 31

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides that

the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”32 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated,

and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).33
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B); 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(e). Section 776 of the Act, in turn, authorizes the Commission

to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a determination when: (1) necessary information is not available on

the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to

provide such information in the time or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or

provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 36 Original Determination at 4.

 37 Apparent consumption of barium chloride rose from *** millions pounds in 1983 to *** million pounds in

1997. CR/PR at Table I-8.

 38 See CR/PR at Table I-8.

 39 CR at I-7, PR at I-6.

 40 CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

 41 CR at I-8, PR at I-7.

8

Section 751(c)(3) of the Act and the Commission’s regulations provide that in an expedited fiveyear review the Commission may issue a final determination “based on the facts available, in accordance

with section 776 of the Act.”34 We have relied on the facts available in this review, which consist

primarily of information from the original investigation and first review, information submitted by the

domestic producer, and official Commerce statistics.

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping order on barium

chloride from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”35 The following conditions of

competition in the barium chloride market are relevant to our determination.

The record in this review indicates that the domestic barium chloride market is a mature market

that is shrinking. Domestic consumption was already declining in the original period of investigation and

the Commission described the barium chloride market at that time as “contracting.”36 However, aggregate

domestic consumption of barium chloride in 1997 was somewhat larger than aggregate domestic

consumption in 1983, the last year of the period of investigation in the original investigation.37 In 2003,

however, apparent U.S. consumption was ***, indicating a more recent and sharp reduction in demand.38

As the Commission found in the original investigation and the 1999 review, the drop in demand

appears to have resulted from the introduction of new products that are substitutes for barium chloride

and the introduction of industrial processes replacing those using barium chloride.39 The record also

indicates, as it did in the first review, that since imposition of the order, barium chloride has been replaced

by calcium chloride in certain pigment production processes.40 Further, gasoline producers have entirely

discontinued production of leaded gasoline, a major use of barium chloride identified in the original

investigation.41
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 42 Original Determination at 5; CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

 43 CPC’s Comments on the Commission’s Review, June 7, 2004, at 14.

 44 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 45 See CR/PR at Table I-8.

 46 See Original Staff Report at A-4; CPC’s Comments on the Commission’s Review, June 7, 2004, at 8 and 10.

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 49 Original Determination at 6; CR/PR at Table I-7 and Table I-8.

 50 Original Determination at 6. The market share of the subject imports increased from *** percent in 1981 to

*** percent in 1983. CR/PR at Table I-7.

9

Also, as was the case in the original investigation and in the 1999 review, CPC remains the only

significant domestic producer of barium chloride, accounting for nearly all domestic production and the

large majority of overall shipments of barium chloride in the U.S. market.42 It is subject to strict

environmental regulations pertaining to the handling of barium that make it difficult for CPC to compete

with companies that are not subject to these regulations.43

Nonsubject imports have declined since the 1999 review. In 1997, nonsubject imports accounted

for approximately *** percent of the U.S. market, only slightly less than the *** percent market share

they held in 1981.44 However, nonsubject imports accounted for less than *** of apparent U.S.

consumption in 2003.45

Finally, as in the original investigation and the 1999 review, the available evidence indicates that

barium chloride is a commodity product and that there is a relatively high degree of substitutability

between imported and domestic barium chloride.46

We find that these conditions in the barium chloride market provide us with a reasonable basis on

which to assess the likely effects of revocation of the antidumping duty order.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order

is revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.47 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the

exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,

which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other

products.48

The Commission found in its original investigation that imports from China increased

significantly during the period of investigation, rising from 4.0 million pounds in 1981 to 5.3 million

pounds in 1983.49 The Commission further found that the subject imports had greatly increased their

market share during the period of investigation.50 Finally, the Commission noted that the level of imports

dropped sharply after imposition of preliminary dumping duties by Commerce in December 1983 and that
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 51 USITC Pub. 3163 at 8.

 52 CR/PR at Table I-7; CPC’s Comments on the Commission’s Review, June 7, 2004, at Attachment A.

 53 CR/PR at Table I-3; CR/PR at Table I-7; CPC’s Comments on the Commission’s Review, June 7, 2004, at

Attachment A.

 54 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 55 CR/PR at Table I-7.

 56 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 57 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 58 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 59 See CR at I-14, PR at I-11. Chinese capacity was estimated to be *** million pounds in the original

investigation. In the 1999 review, capacity was estimated to be at least *** million pounds. Id.

 60 CR at I-14, PR at I-11. The record in the original investigation identified three plants in China that produced

barium chloride for export to the United States, i.e. Zhang Jia Ba, Tangshan, and Tianjin. Capacity was determined

for Zhang Jia Ba and Tangshan, but not for Tianjin. CR at I-14, PR at I-11.

In the instant review, CPC identified eight additional plants producing barium chloride. While the record in

this review contains production estimates for these plants, no data are available for the three plants identified in the

original investigation. According to CPC, these three plants continue to have substantial production capacity. 

CPC’s Comments on the Commission’s Review, June 7, 2004, at 7.

 61 CR/PR at Table I-8.

10

Chinese shipments to the European Community dropped sharply after the European Community made an

affirmative dumping finding against them.

In the 1999 review, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping order would

result in a significant increase in the volume of subject imports. The evidence at that time indicated that

the order had imposed a level of discipline on the subject imports and that the Chinese producers of

barium chloride had more than *** their capacity for production of barium chloride.51

Barium chloride imported from China declined slowly, but consistently, after the antidumping

duty order was imposed in 1984 with a margin of 14.5 percent.52 After Commerce imposed 60.84 percent

antidumping duties on the subject imports in January 1989, the level of subject imports from China

dropped precipitously and there were no subject imports during 1991-1993.53

Subject imports captured only *** percent of the U.S. market in 1997.54 They began to increase

again in 1998, although the absolute level of subject imports remained low.55 Commerce calculated a new

deposit rate of 155.50 percent in March 2003.56 Despite these higher duties and declining U.S. demand,

subject imports increased in 2003 and captured *** percent of the U.S. market.57 Because the volume and

market share held by nonsubject imports decreased in 2003, the U.S. producer’s share of the market

increased in 2003 to *** percent, despite the increase in subject imports.58

The record indicates that the Chinese producers have significant capacity for the production of

barium chloride and that capacity has increased from the time of the original investigation and the 1999

review.59 Available information indicates that Chinese capacity for production of barium chloride is at

least *** million pounds.60 Total U.S. apparent consumption was only *** million pounds in 2003.61

The current conditions of competition are similar to those in existence prior to imposition of the

order, although there is now an even smaller U.S. market for barium chloride. Domestic prices for

crystalline and anhydrous barium chloride are also higher now than during the period of the original
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 62 See CR/PR at Table I-6.

 63 We note that, as was the case in the 1999 review, there is no information on the record regarding the potential

for product shifting, the level of inventories in China, or significant barriers to importation from other countries.

 64 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

 65 USITC Pub. 3163 at 10.

 66 USITC Pub. 3163 at 10.

 67 CPC’s Comments on the Commission’s Review, June 7, 2004, at 8, 10.

11

investigation and have risen a bit since 1997, suggesting the United States is a more attractive market for

subject imports.62 It is also clear that the order has had a significant restraining effect on the volume of

subject imports and that the U.S. market remains an attractive market for Chinese exporters. We conclude

therefore that Chinese producers would resume exporting significant volumes of barium chloride to the

United States if the order were revoked.

Accordingly, based on the available information, including the unrebutted information provided

by the domestic industry, we conclude that the likely volume of imports of the subject merchandise, both

in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States, would be significant

absent the restraining effect of the antidumping duty order.63

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping order is revoked, the

Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

imports as compared to domestic like products and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the

price of domestic like products.64

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the subject merchandise had

substantially undersold the domestic product during every quarter of the period of investigation for which

comparisons were available and that domestic prices had declined during the latter half of the period as a

result of this underselling.

In the 1999 review, the Commission noted that barium chloride is a commodity product and that

the subject imports are highly substitutable for domestically produced barium chloride, suggesting that

price is an important factor in purchasing decisions.65 It found that the customs values for the subject

imports were largely unchanged from the period of the original investigation, although prices for barium

chloride in the U.S. market were higher.66 It therefore concluded that revocation of the order would have

significant price-depressing effects in the U.S. market due to significant underselling.

The available evidence is largely unchanged from the time of the previous review of the order in

1999. The record in this review indicates that barium chloride is a commodity product, that the subject

imports are highly substitutable for domestic barium chloride, and that price is an important factor in

purchasing decisions.67 While customs unit values for the subject imports have risen somewhat since the
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 68 See CR/PR at Table I-7. Unit values for shipments of domestic barium chloride were *** cents in 2003 while

unit values for the subject imports were *** cents. Compare CR/PR at Table I-6 with CR/PR at Table I-7.

 69 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 70 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude

of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute

defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the

dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19

U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In the final results of its expedited sunset review of the

antidumping order on barium chloride from China, Commerce determined that revocation of the order would likely

lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at a weighted-average margin of 155.50 percent. 69 Fed. Reg.

31791 (June 7, 2004).

 71 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885.

 72 Original Determination at 5-6.

 73 See CR/PR at Table I-8.

12

original investigation and the period of the 1999 review, they still remain well below those of shipments

of domestic product and nonsubject imports despite the antidumping duty order.68

Given that the current conditions of competition are similar to those that prevailed during the

original investigation and that there is no indication that the nature of the imported product has changed,

we find it likely that Chinese producers would resume selling significant volumes of barium chloride

from China that would significantly undersell the domestic like product to further gain market share. 

Therefore, the subject imports would likely have significant depressing or suppressing effects on prices

for domestic barium chloride.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order is

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to: (1) likely declines in

output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2)

likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and

investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like

product.69 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and

the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.70 As instructed by the statute, we have

considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the

order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked.71

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s condition had

“deteriorated” and that it had suffered significant production, shipment and sales declines throughout the

period.72 Moreover, the record of the investigation showed that the industry had suffered a significant

loss of market share to the Chinese producers during that same period.73
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 74 USITC Pub. 3163 at 11.

 75 USITC Pub. 3163 at 11.

 76 USITC Pub. 3163 at 11.

 77 USITC Pub. 3163 at 11-12.

 78 See CR/PR at Table I-6.

 79 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 80 CR/PR at Table I-6; CPC’s Comments on the Commission’s Review, June 7, 2004, at Attachment D.

 81 See CR/PR at Table I-6. The domestic industry’s shipments fell to *** million pounds in 2003 from ***

million pounds in 1997. CR/PR at Table I-6.

 82 CPC’s Comments on the Commission’s Review, June 7, 2004, at 13-14.

13

In the 1999 review, the Commission found that the condition of the domestic industry “appears to

have improved” so that it was in a “reasonably healthy financial condition.”74 CPC at that time indicated

that it was earning a “reasonable rate of return.”75 The available record evidence then indicated that

domestic shipment levels, capacity utilization, sales revenues, and unit sales values had all increased

substantially since the original period of investigation, even though U.S. apparent consumption declined

somewhat.76 Moreover, the domestic industry’s market share had significantly increased after the subject

imports exited the market. The Commission found, however, that these improvements in the condition of

the industry resulted largely from the imposition of the order and the departure of subject imports from

the market, and that, in light of the likely significant increase in the volume of imports with pricesuppressive or depressive effects, the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on

the domestic industry if the order were revoked, and that material injury would be likely to recur.77

Information is again limited with respect to the condition of the domestic industry, and the

available information is mixed.78 The industry has further increased its market share. As subject imports

and nonsubject imports have left the U.S. market, the domestic industry’s market share has increased so

that in 2003 it captured *** percent of the U.S. market compared to *** percent in 1997.79 Further, prices

for crystalline and anhydrous barium chloride continue to increase, and the unit values of the domestic

industry’s shipments have risen as well.80 On the other hand, due to falling consumption of barium

chloride, the domestic industry’s shipments have declined significantly relative to its shipments in the

original investigation and 1997.81

CPC argues that it is vulnerable to material injury if the order were revoked. It asserts that

increased environmental regulation, the further decline in the U.S. market for barium chloride and the

increased capacity in China are all factors which render it vulnerable to injury.82 Given the limited

available evidence in this review and the lack of recent financial data for CPC, we find an insufficient

basis for deeming the industry vulnerable.

However, as described above, revocation of the antidumping order would likely lead to a

significant increase in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the domestic like product and

significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. We also find that the volume and price effects of the subject

imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share,

and revenues of the domestic industry. These reductions, in turn, would have a direct adverse impact on

the industry’s profitability as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital

investments. Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping order on subject imports from China

were revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

14

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping order on barium

chloride from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry

in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2

 All interested parties were requested to respond to the notice by submitting information requested by the

Commission. Copies of the Commission’s Federal Register notices are presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published a notice

of initiation of a five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s notice

of institution. 69 FR 4921, February 2, 2004.

 4

 The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. See 

response to Commission’s notice of institution of Chemical Products Corp. (CPC), March 23, 2004. See also 

Commission’s memorandum of April 27, 2004, INV-BB-049, Barium Chloride: Investigation No. 731-TA-149 

(Second Review)–Recommendation on Adequacy of Responses to Notice of Institution. 

 5

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party.

 6

 A copy of the Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy is presented in app. B.

 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 8

 49 FR 40675, October 17, 1984. See also Barium Chloride From The People’s Republic of China: Inv. No.

731-TA-149 (Final), USITC Pub. 1584, October 1984. The original investigation resulted from a petition filed with

Commerce and the Commission on behalf of CPC. See 48 FR 50626, November 2, 1983. 

 9

 49 FR 40635, October 17, 1984. The antidumping duty margin for barium chloride was 14.5 percent ad

valorem for all producers/exporters in China. 

 10 See Commission’s News Release 99-023, February 22, 1999.

I-1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE SECOND REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Background

On February 2, 2004, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act),1

 as

amended, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) gave notice that it had instituted a

second five-year (“sunset”) review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on

barium chloride from China would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury

within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On May 7, 2004, the Commission determined that the domestic

interested party response to its notice of institution was adequate;4

 the Commission also determined that

the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.5

 The Commission found no other

circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.6

 Accordingly, the Commission determined

that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930.7

Information relating to the background of this review is presented in table I-1. A historical chronology of

the original investigation and first five-year review is presented in table I-2.

The Original Investigation and First Five-Year Review

The Commission completed its original investigation in September 1984, determining that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of barium chloride from China 

which Commerce determined were being sold, or likely to be sold, at less than fair value (LTFV).8

Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on the imports of such merchandise from China in October

1984.9

 On October 1, 1998, the Commission instituted the first five-year review on barium chloride. On

February 22, 1999, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium

chloride from China would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury.10
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

I-2

Table I-1

Barium chloride: Chronology of investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review)

Date Action

February 2, 2004 Commission publishes notice of institution of second five-year review in Federal Register1

February 2, 2004 Commerce publishes notice of initiation of second five-year review in Federal Register2

May 7, 2004 Commission votes to conduct expedited second five-year review

May 19, 2004 Commission publishes notice of scheduling for second five-year review in Federal Register3

June 7, 2004 Commerce publishes final results of expedited second five-year review 4

June 22, 2004 Commission’s vote

July 1, 2004 Commission’s transmittal of determination and views to Commerce

1

 69 FR 4979.

2

 69 FR 4921.

3

 69 FR 28947.

4

 69 FR 31791. A copy of Commerce’s Federal Register notice is presented in app. A.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Table I-2

Barium chloride: Selected historical actions taken by the Commission and Commerce

Action

Date

of action

Federal

Register

citation

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Final):

Commission publishes determination 10/17/84 49 FR 40675

Commerce publishes antidumping duty order (A-570-007)1 10/17/84 49 FR 40635

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Review):2

Commission publishes notice of institution of review 10/01/98 63 FR 52750

Commerce publishes notice of initiation of review 10/01/98 63 FR 52683

Commission publishes determination 03/03/99 64 FR 10317

Commerce publishes continuation of antidumping duty order 08/05/99 64 FR 42654 

1

 The antidumping duty margin for barium chloride was 14.5 percent ad valorem for all producers/exporters in China. 2

 The Commission’s first five-year review was also expedited.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 11 69 FR 31791, June 7, 2004. A copy of Commerce’s Federal Register notice is presented in app. A.

I-3

Commerce’s Administrative and Five-Year Reviews

Between 1982 and 2004, Commerce conducted numerous administrative reviews with respect to

imports of barium chloride from China. Table I-3 presents information on Commerce’s order,

administrative reviews, and first five-year review. 

Table I-3

Barium chloride: Commerce’s administrative and five-year reviews

Action

Date

of action

Federal

Register

citation Period of review

Antidumping duty margins

SINOCHEM1 All others

Percent ad valorem

Final determination 08/27/84 49 FR 33918 10/01/82–09/30/83 14.50 14.50

Order (A-570-007) 10/17/84 49 FR 40635 (2

) 14.50 14.50

Administrative review 01/05/87 52 FR 313 10/01/84–09/30/85 7.82 7.82

Administrative review 01/03/89 54 FR 52 04/06/84–09/30/84 27.70 60.84

Administrative review 01/03/89 54 FR 52 10/01/85–09/30/86 60.84 60.84

Administrative review 07/02/92 57 FR 29467 10/01/90–09/30/91 60.84 7.82

Five-year review 02/04/99 64 FR 5633 (2

) 14.50 14.50

Continuation of order3 08/05/99 64 FR 42654 (2

) (2) (2)

Administrative review 11/16/99 64 FR 62168 10/01/97–04/30/98 60.84 60.84

Administrative review 03/17/03 68 FR 12669 10/01/00–09/30/01 155.50 155.50

1

 China National Chemicals Import and Export Corp. (SINOCHEM). 2

 Not applicable.

3

 Commerce’s publication of the notice of continuation was delayed. The notice explicitly indicated that the effective date of

continuation of the order was March 10, 1999, rather than August 5, 1999.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Commerce’s Final Results of Second Expedited Five-Year Review

On June 7, 2004, the Commission received notification of Commerce’s “Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review” concerning barium chloride from China.11 The review covered all

manufacturers and exporters of barium chloride from China. Commerce determined that dumping is

likely to continue or recur if the antidumping duty order is revoked, with margins of dumping of 155.50 

percent ad valorem. 
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 12 19 CFR 159.64(g). 

 13 See U.S. Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003.

 14 Since January 1, 2002, barium chloride has been classified under HTS subheading 2827.39.45. From 1989

through 2001, barium chloride was classified under HTS subheading 2827.38.00. Prior to 1989, barium chloride

was classified under item 417.70 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States.

 15 Commerce’s Final Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 69 FR 31791, June 7, 2003.

I-4

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy

Offset Funds to Affected Domestic Producers 

Since September 21, 2001, qualified U.S. producers of barium chloride have been eligible to

receive disbursements from the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) under the

Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA), also known as the Byrd Amendment.12

One firm, CPC, received such funds.13 Table I-4 presents CPC’s CDSOA claims and disbursements for

federal fiscal years 2001-03.

Table I-4

Barium chloride: CPC’s CDSOA claims and disbursements, federal fiscal years 2001-03

Year Claim number

Share of

allocation

Amount of

claim filed1

Amount in

clearing

account2

Amount

disbursed3

Percent Dollars

2001 110707 100.0 43,885,000 41,719 38,634

2002 120988 100.0 43,916,366 63,714 666

2003 130209 100.0 50,157,700 55,557 131,992

1

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order, as presented in Section I of the

CSDOA Annual Reports. 2

 Amount of antidumping duty cash deposits and bonds on all unliquidated dumping duty entries as of October 1, as

presented in Section III of Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports. 3

 As presented in Section I of Customs’ CSDOA Annual Reports.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports.

THE PRODUCT

Scope

According to Commerce, the merchandise covered by this review is barium chloride, a chemical

compound having the formula BaCl2 or BaCl2•2H2O, and is currently classified under subheading

2827.38.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS),14 a subheading that covers

only the subject product.15
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 16 Based on Commerce’s latest administrative review. See 68 FR 12669, March 17, 2003.

 17 During the original investigation it was reported that crystalline barium chloride accounted for over 60 percent

of U.S. production of barium chloride and nearly all of the subject product from China. See Barium Chloride From

The People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Final), USITC Pub. 1584, October 1984, p. A-3.

 18 See Barium Chloride From The People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Final), USITC Pub. 1584,

October 1984, pp. 3-4. 

 19 See Barium Chloride From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Review), USITC Pub. 3163, March 1999, pp. 4-5.

 20 Ibid.

I-5

U.S. Tariff Treatment

Table I-5 presents current tariff rates for barium chloride. In addition to the general column-1

duty rates, imports of barium chloride from China are currently subject to an antidumping duty of 155.50

percent ad valorem.

16

Table I-5

Barium chloride: Tariff rates, 2004

HTS provision Article description1

General2 Special3 Column 24

Rates (percent ad valorem)

2827.39.455 Chlorides, chloride oxides and chloride

hydroxides; bromides and bromide oxides;

iodides and iodide oxides:

Other:

Of barium 4.2 Free 28.5

1

 An abridged description is provided for convenience; however, an unabridged description may be obtained from the

respective headings, subheadings, and legal notes of the HTS. 2

 Normal trade relations rates, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate, applicable to imports from China. 3

 For eligible goods under the Generalized System of Preferences, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, Andean Trade

Preference Act, Israel Free Trade Agreement, Jordan Free Trade Agreement, Chile Free Trade Agreement, Singapore Free Trade

Agreement, and NAFTA-originating goods of Canada and Mexico. 4

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal or preferential trade relations duty status. 5

 Since January 1, 2002, barium chloride has been classified under HTS subheading 2827.39.45. From 1989 through 2001,

barium chloride was classified under HTS subheading 2827.38.00. Prior to 1989, barium chloride was classified under item

417.70 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2004).

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

In the original 1984 determination, the Commission defined the domestic like product as

crystalline and anhydrous barium chloride,17 excluding high purity barium chloride, and found one

domestic industry producing both forms.18 In the first expedited five-year review, the Commission

defined the domestic like product as “the same as Commerce’s scope: all barium chloride, whether

crystalline or anhydrous,”19 and defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of barium

chloride.20
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 21 69 FR 4979, February 2, 2004.

 22 CPC’s response to Commission’s notice of institution (March 23, 2004), p. 17.

 23 Barium Chloride From The People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Final), USITC Pub. 1584,

October 1984, p. A-3, and CPC’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the first five-year review, p.

19.

 24 Barium Chloride From The People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Final), USITC Pub. 1584,

October 1984, p. A-3.

 25 Barium Chloride From The People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Final), USITC Pub. 1584,

October 1984, p. A-3, and CPC’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the first five-year review, p.

19.

 26 CPC’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the first five-year review, pp. 19-20.

I-6

For purposes of responding to the Commission’s notice in this second five-year review, parties 

were instructed to consider the domestic like product to be all forms of barium chloride, whether

crystalline or anhydrous.21 In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this second fiveyear review, CPC stated that it agrees with the Commission’s definition of the domestic like product as

“crystalline and anhydrous barium chloride, excluding high purity barium chloride.”22

Description and Uses

CPC produces barium chloride from barite ore (naturally occurring barium sulfate) by crushing

the ore, mixing it with petroleum coke, and reducing it at high temperatures to barium sulfide, which is

purified and dissolved in water; the barium sulfide solution is then reacted with hydrochloric acid to

remove byproduct hydrogen sulfide as a gas, and when the resulting solution is evaporated, barium

chloride crystals remain. The crystalline form is reduced to the anhydrous form by applying intense heat,

which drives off the water that is molecularly bonded in the crystals.23 Because of the additional

processing and increased concentration, the anhydrous form sells at a premium price.24

Crystalline barium chloride (BaCl2•2H2O) is used primarily as a cleansing agent in the removal of

soluble sulfates in the production of certain chemicals; as a cleansing ingredient in lubricating oil

additives; as a raw material in the production of certain chemicals, pigments, and paper coatings; and as

an intermediate material in the production of molecular sieves. The anhydrous form (BaCl2) is used

primarily as an ingredient in heat-treating salts and metal fluxes--molten baths into which metal parts are

inserted for purposes of hardening.25 The market for barium chloride is a mature one; no significant new

uses for barium chloride have been developed since the original investigation. However, one significant

use of barium chloride during the original investigation, which was as a raw material in the production of

tetraethyl lead, has been eliminated as a result of the discontinued production of leaded gasoline; also,

increased environmental regulation of barium compounds has led to the development of new processes in

pigment production that substitute cheaper and reportedly more environmentally friendly calcium

chloride for barium chloride.26
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 27 Staff Report of Sept. 17, 1984, p. A-7.

 28 CPC’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the first five-year review, p. 17.

 29 CPC’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the second five-year review, p. 13.

I-7

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

CPC, located in Cartersville, GA, was the sole petitioner in the original 1984 investigation. The

domestic industry, at that time, was comprised of five U.S. producers of barium chloride, with CPC

accounting for at least *** percent of total U.S. production.27

During the first five-year review in 1998, CPC described itself as the sole remaining commercial

producer of barium chloride in the United States. In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution

in that review, CPC also listed three other domestic firms that produced “small” amounts of barium

chloride in 1998 and explained that two of the U.S. producers (Barium & Chemicals and GTE Products

Corp.) produced small amounts of barium chloride for internal consumption and that the third U.S.

producer (G.F. Smith Chemical Co.) produced small amounts of ultra-pure barium chloride for laboratory

use.28

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this second five-year review, CPC

again described itself as the sole remaining commercial producer of barium chloride in the United States,

and listed only Barium & Chemicals of Steubenville, OH, and Osram Sylvania (formerly GTE Products

Corp.) of Towanda, PA, as domestic producers of small amounts of barium chloride for internal

consumption.29

U.S. Producer’s Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

CPC responded in a timely manner to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review. CPC

is believed to account for almost all U.S. production of barium chloride and all known commercial

shipments in 2003. Information on the U.S. industry, therefore, is based on the data of CPC. Table I-6

presents information on CPC’s trade, employment, and financial data during 1981-83, 1997, and 2003. 

Table I-6

Barium chloride: CPC’s trade, employment, and financial data, 1981-83, 1997, and 2003

*******

U.S. IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

Table I-7 presents information on U.S. imports of barium chloride during 1981-83 and 1989-

2003. Figure I-1 presents the same information as well as imports from China only during 1984-88. 
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

I-8

Table I-7Barium chloride: U.S. imports, 1981-83 and 1989-20031

Item 1981 1982 1983 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 3,994 4,319 5,330 300 132 0 0 0 188 323 264 243 391 635 683 715 525 573All other 3,209 1,541 1,475 2,956 3,196 1,288 1,212 1,073 937 2,132 3,445 2,703 3,930 3,744 2,043 37 12 22Total 7,203 5,860 6,805 3,256 3,329 1,288 1,212 1,073 1,125 2,455 3,710 2,945 4,322 4,379 2,726 753 537 594

Landed duty-paid value ($1,000)

China 329 322 471 44 18 0 0 0 16 27 24 23 35 51 112 129 103 104All other 530 282 230 680 790 366 337 284 256 646 1,276 870 1,244 1,510 665 171 23 51Total 859 604 701 724 808 366 337 284 272 672 1,300 893 1,279 1,561 777 301 126 155

Unit value (per pound)

China $0.08 $0.07 $0.09 $0.15 $0.14 (2) (2) (2) $0 $0.08 $0.09 $0 $0.09 $0.08 $0.16 $0.18 $0.20 $0.18

All other $0.17 $0.18 $0.16 $0.23 $0.25 $0.28 $0.28 $0.26 $0.27 $0.30 $0.37 $0.32 $0.32 $0.40 $0.33 $4.57 $1.85 $2.32Total $0.12 $0.10 $0.10 $0.22 $0.24 $0.28 $0.28 $0.26 $0.24 $0.27 $0.35 $0.30 $0.30 $0.36 $0.29 $0.40 $0.23 $0.26

Share of quantity (percent)

China 55.4 73.7 78.3 9.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 13.2 7.1 8.2 9.1 14.5 25.1 95.0 97.7 96.3All other 44.6 26.3 21.7 90.8 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 83.3 86.8 92.9 91.8 90.9 85.5 74.9 5.0 2.3 3.7Average 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 38.3 53.3 67.2 6.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 4.0 1.8 2.6 2.8 3.3 14.4 43.0 81.8 67.3All other 61.7 46.7 32.8 93.9 97.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.2 96.0 98.2 97.4 97.2 96.7 85.6 57.0 18.2 32.7Average 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 Since January 1, 2002, barium chloride has been classified under HTS subheading 2827.39.45. From 1989 through 2001, barium chloride was classified under HTS subheading 2827.38.00. Prior to 1989, barium

chloride was classified under item 417.70 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. 2 Not applicable.Note.–Data presented for the period 1981-83 are based on the staff report of September 17, 1984, table 1. Data for all other periods are based on official Commerce statistics.Source: Compiled from the staff report of September 17, 1984, and official Commerce statistics.
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 30 Data for U.S. imports of barium chloride from China during 1981-88 are based on information presented in

Barium Chloride From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Review), USITC Pub. 3163, March 1999, figure I-1, p. I-8. 

Data for U.S. imports of barium chloride from “all other sources” for the period 1984-88 are unavailable. Data for

U.S. imports during 1989-2003 are based on table I-7 of this report. 

 The following tabulation presents U.S. imports of barium chloride from China during 1981-88 (in 1,000 pounds):

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

3,995 4,319 5,330 3,293 3,298 2,550 2,163 1,508

I-9

Figure I-1

Barium chloride: U.S. imports, 1981-200330

Source: Barium Chloride From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Review), USITC Pub. 3163, March 1999, figure I-1,

p. I-8; and table I-7.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

198119821983198419851986

1987

1988

19891990

1991

199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Quantity (1,000 pounds) 

China All other sources
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

I-10

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

 Table I-8 presents information on apparent U.S. consumption and market shares for the periods 

1981-83, 1997, and 2003.

Table I-8

Barium chloride: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, apparent U.S.

consumption, and market shares, 1981-83, 1997, and 2003

Item 1981 1982 1983 1997 2003

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producer’s domestic shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:1

China 3,994 4,319 5,330 243 573

All other sources 3,209 1,541 1,475 2,703 22

Total imports 7,203 5,860 6,805 2,945 594

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producer’s domestic shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:1

China 329 322 471 23 104

All other sources 530 282 230 870 51

Total imports 859 604 701 893 155

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Share of apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producer’s domestic shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

China *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports *** *** *** *** ***

Share of apparent U.S. consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producer’s domestic shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

China *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports *** *** *** *** ***

1

 Based on official Commerce statistics. Since January 1, 2002, barium chloride has been classified under HTS subheading

2827.39.45. From 1989 through 2001, barium chloride was classified under HTS subheading 2827.38.00. Prior to 1989, barium

chloride was classified under item 417.70 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States.

Note.--Data presented for the period 1981-83 are based on the staff report of September 17, 1984; data for 1997 are based on

memorandum INV-W-016, staff report of February 4, 1999, Barium Chloride from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-149 

(Review), table I-1, p. I-7. Data for 2003 are based on the CPC’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this

second five-year review.

Source: Compiled from data presented in the staff reports in the original investigation and the first five-year review; CPC’s

response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the second five-year review; and official Commerce statistics.
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

 31 Staff Report of Sept. 17, 1984, pp. A-3, A-8, and A-21.

 32 The seven plants identified by CPC, their locations, and their annual production quantities were: Red Star in

Qingdao City (44.1 million pounds), Linshu in Shangdong Province (44.1 million pounds), Ermeishang in Sichuan

Province (22.0 million pounds), Hengnan in Henan Province (11.0 million pounds), Buohai in Tianjing City (15.9

million pounds), Kunghan in Jiangshu Province (2.6 million pounds), and Xinji in Hebei Province (22.0 million

pounds). Barium Chloride From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Review), USITC Pub. 3163, March 1999, pp.

I-6-I-7. 

 33 This figure did not include any estimation for the capacity of the Tianjin plant; also, this figure presumed the

capacities of the seven firms were equal to the production reported by CPC.

 34 CPC’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution (March 23, 2004), pp. 7-8.

I-11

The Industry In China

During October 1, 1982 through September 30, 1983, the period of Commerce’s original

investigation, SINOCHEM accounted for all of China’s known exports of barium chloride to the United

States. During the time of the Commission’s original investigation, SINOCHEM reported that the

capacity to produce barium chloride in China was *** pounds per year and that only three chemical plants

in China produced barium chloride for export to the United States: Zhang Jia Ba in Sichuan Province,

with a capacity of *** pounds per year, Tangshan in Hebei Province, with a capacity of *** pounds, and

Tianjin in the city of Tianjin, with an unknown capacity. At the time of the original investigation, the

home market demand for barium chloride in China was expected to increase as a result of anticipated

increased demand for leaded gasoline.31

The only information on the industry in China provided during the first five-year review was that

provided by CPC, which reported that it believed that Zhang Jia Ba, Tangshan, and Tianjin continued to

have substantial productive capacity. In addition, CPC listed seven other plants that it stated were

producing barium chloride in China and that it believed were producing for export; these seven firms

reportedly had annual production of about 161.8 million pounds.32 Using the figures supplied by CPC

and presuming that the capacities of Zhang Jia Ba and Tangshan to produce barium chloride had not

decreased since the original period of investigation, the capacity in China to produce barium chloride was

estimated to be at least *** pounds.33

As in the first five-year review, the only information on the industry in China in the second fiveyear review was provided by CPC, which reported that it believes that Zhang Jia Ba, Tangshan, and

Tianjin continue to have substantial productive capacity. In addition, CPC listed eight other

producers/plants that it stated were producing barium chloride in China and that it believed were

producing for export. These eight firms (listed in the following tabulation) reportedly have annual

production of about 172.8 million pounds.34
Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

I-12

Firm Location Annual production

1,000 pounds

Linshu Shangdong Province 44,092

Red Star Qingdao City 44,092

Ermeishang Sichuan Province 22,046

Xingji Hebei Province 22,046

Buohai Tianjing City 15,873

Guizhou Hongxing Guizhou Province 11,023

Hengnan Henan Province 11,023

Kunghan Jiangshu Province 2,646

Total 172,841

Using the figures supplied by CPC and presuming that the capacities of Zhang Jia Ba and

Tangshan to produce barium chloride have not decreased since the original period of investigation, the

current capacity in China to produce barium chloride is estimated to be at least *** pounds, more than

*** the capacity level reported during the original investigation.
Invs. Nos. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2004 / Notices 4979

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 04–5–080, 

expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 7 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–149 (Review)] 

Barium Chloride From China

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on barium chloride from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on barium 

chloride from China would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury. Pursuant to section 

751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties 

are requested to respond to this notice 

by submitting the information specified 

below to the Commission; 1 to be 

assured of consideration, the deadline 

for responses is March 23, 2004. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

April 16, 2004. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s rules of practice and 

procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—On October 17, 1984, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

barium chloride from China (49 FR 

40635). Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective March 10, 1999, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

barium chloride from China (64 FR 

42654, August 5, 1999). The 

Commission is now conducting a 

second review to determine whether 

revocation of the order would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct a full review or an expedited 

4980 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2004 / Notices 

review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Like Product as crystalline 

and anhydrous barium chloride, 

excluding high purity barium chloride. 

In its expedited five-year review 

determination, the Commission found 

that the appropriate definition of the 

Domestic Like Product was the same as 

Commerce’s scope: all barium chloride, 

whether crystalline or anhydrous. For 

purposes of this notice, you should 

consider the Domestic Like Product to 

be all barium chloride, whether 

crystalline or anhydrous.

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as producers of crystalline and 

anhydrous barium chloride, excluding 

producers of high purity barium 

chloride. In its expedited five-year 

review determination, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Industry as all 

domestic producers of barium chloride. 

For purposes of this notice, you should 

consider the Domestic Industry to be all 

domestic producers of barium chloride. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the Review and 

Public Service List.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are reminded that they 

are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, 

to seek Commission approval if the 

matter in which they are seeking to 

appear was pending in any manner or 

form during their Commission 

employment. The Commission is 

seeking guidance as to whether a second 

transition five-year review is the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the underlying 

original investigation for purposes of 19 

CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees. Former employees may seek 

informal advice from Commission ethics 

officials with respect to this and the 

related issue of whether the employee’s 

participation was ‘‘personal and 

substantial.’’ However, any informal 

consultation will not relieve former 

employees of the obligation to seek 

approval to appear from the 

Commission under its rule 201.15. For 

ethics advice, contact Carol McCue 

Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, 

at 202–205–3088. 

Limited Disclosure of Business 

Proprietary Information (BPI) Under an 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

and APO Service List.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written Submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is March 23, 2004. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is April 16, 

2004. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability To Provide Requested 

Information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to This Notice of Institution:

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2004 / Notices 4981

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

1997. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2003 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production;

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2003 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from the 

Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2003 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping or 

countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 1997, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(11) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions.

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules.

Issued: January 27, 2004. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–2064 Filed 1–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 19, 2004 / Notices 28947

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–149 (Second 

Review)] 

Barium Chloride From China

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on barium chloride from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on barium chloride from 

China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 7, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Fischer (202–205–3179 or 

fred.fischer@usitc.gov), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On May 7, 2004, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (69 

FR 4979, February 2, 2004) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant

28948 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 19, 2004 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s web site.

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by Chemical Products Corp. to be 

adequate. Comments from other interested parties 

will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on June 3, and 

made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for this review. A public version 

will be issued thereafter, pursuant to 

section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before June 8, 

2004 and may not contain new factual 

information. Any person that is neither 

a party to the five-year review nor an 

interested party may submit a brief 

written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by June 8, 2004. 

However, should the Department of 

Commerce extend the time limit for its 

completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service.

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 14, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–11318 Filed 5–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 109 / Monday, June 7, 2004 / Notices 31791

1 Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews,69 FR 

4921 (February 2, 2004).

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–007]

Barium Chloride from The People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of the 

Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty 

Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Expedited Sunset Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order on Barium 

Chloride from The People’s Republic of 

China; Final Results.

SUMMARY: On February 2, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published the notice of 

initiation of sunset review on barium 

chloride from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘China’’). On the basis of the 

notice of intent to participate, and 

adequate substantive comments filed on 

behalf of a domestic interested party 

and inadequate response (in this case, 

no response) from respondent interested 

party, we determined to conduct an 

expedited (120–day) sunset review. As a 

result of this review, we find that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the levels listed below in the section 

entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy for 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5050.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 2, 2004, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on barium chloride from China 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’).1

The Department received Notice of 

Intent to Participate on behalf of 

Chemical Products Corporation 

(‘‘CPC’’), a domestic interested party, 

within the deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

Regulations (‘‘Sunset Regulations’’). 

CPC claimed interested party status 

under Section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a 

U.S. producer of barium chloride. We 

received a complete substantive 

response from CPC within the 30–day 

deadline specified in the Sunset 

Regulations under section 

351.218(d)(3)(I).

We did not receive a substantive 

response from any interested party 

respondents in this proceeding. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted an expedited (120–day) 

sunset review of this antidumping duty 

order.

The order remains in effect for all 

Chinese manufacturers, producers, and 

exporters.

Scope of the Order

The merchandise covered by this 

order is barium chloride, a chemical 

compound having the formula BaCl2 or 

BaCl2–2H2 0, currently classifiable 

under item 2827.38.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS). 

HTS items numbers are provided for 

convenience and for Customs purposes. 

The written descriptions remain 

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in this case by CPC 

are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memo’’) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import 

Administration, to James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated June 1, 2004, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memo include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margin likely 

to prevail if the finding were to be 

revoked. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in room 

B–099 of the main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, 

under the heading ‘‘June 2004.’’ The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content.

31792 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 109 / Monday, June 7, 2004 / Notices 

Final Results of Review

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on barium 

chloride from China would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following percentage 

weighted–average margins:

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted Average Margin Percent 

China National Chemicals Import and Export Corporation (SINOCHEM) .............. 155.50

China–wide rate ....................................................................................................... 155.50

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305 of the Department’s regulations. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

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

Act.

Dated: May 28, 2004.

Jeffrey A. May,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–12807 Filed 6–4–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
Invs. Nos. 731-TA-149 (Second Review) Barium Chloride

B-1

APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Barium Chloride from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review)

On May 7, 2004, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited review in the

subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,

19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B). 

The Commission received a response from one domestic producer, Chemical Products Corp.

(“CPC”). The Commission determined that the response was individually adequate. The Commission

also determined that the response represented an adequate domestic interested party group response

because CPC accounts for a significant share of domestic production of the like product.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party. Consequently,

the Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The

Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. The

Commission therefore determined to conduct an expedited review. A record of the Commissioners’ votes

is available from the Office of the Secretary and the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).