U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4077 May 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Saccharin from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1013 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Cynthia Trainor, Investigator 

Stephen Wanser, Industry Analyst 

Clark Workman, Economist 

Mary Klir, Accountant 

David Goldfine, Attorney 

Lemuel Shields, Statistician 

James McClure, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4077 May 2009

Saccharin from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1013 (Review)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Part I: Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

The original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Previous investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s original investigations and its reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Results of original investigations and expedited five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds to 

affected domestic producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................ II-1

U.S. market segments/channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-2

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-3

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4

Comparisons of domestic products and subject imports and nonsubject imports .......... II-5

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-7

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-8

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry ............................................ III-1

U.S. producer’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-1

Changes in character of operations and capacity projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producer’s domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............. III-3

U.S. producer’s inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producer’s imports and purchases ............................................. III-4

U.S. producer’s employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-5
ii

CONTENTS

Page

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry–Continued

Financial experience of the U.S. producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

Introduction ............................................................... III-5

Operations on saccharin ...................................................... III-6

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-6

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-6

Part IV: U.S. imports, the industry in China, and the global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. shipments of imports by type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

U.S. importers’ imports subsequent to December 31, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

China’s capacity, production, capacity utilization, home market shipments, 

export shipments, and inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Trade restrictions in third-country markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Supply and demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Trade balances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and the Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Reserved for calendar of public hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Comments on the significance of the existing antidumping duty order

 and the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-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.
 1

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1013 (Review)

SACCHARIN FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

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

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

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on saccharin 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 June 2, 2008 (73 F.R. 31504) and determined on

September 5, 2008 that it would conduct a full review (73 F.R. 53444, September 16, 2008). Notice of

the scheduling of the Commission’s review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was

given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on December 1, 2008 (73 F.R.

72837). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2009, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Saccharin from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1013 (Final), USITC Pub. 3606 (June 2003) (“Original

Determination”). All citations are to the confidential version of the Original Determination. 

 2

 The Commission has conducted investigations of saccharin on two previous occasions. In the 1977

investigations, conducted under the Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended, the Commission reached negative

determinations. See Saccharin from Japan and the Republic of Korea, Inv. Nos. AA1921-174 & 175, USITC Pub.

846 (Dec. 1977). In the 1993-94 investigation, the Commission also reached a negative determination. See

Saccharin from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-675 (Final), USITC Pub. 2842 (Dec. 1994). 

 3

 68 Fed. Reg. 40906 (July 9, 2003).

 4

 73 Fed. Reg. 31504 (June 2, 2008).

 5

 See e.g., CR/PR at IV-1.

 6

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson determined that the respondent interested party group response was adequate. 

 7

 In the Commmission’s explanation on adequacy, it determined that because PMC was the sole domestic

producer and the primary importer of subject product in 2007, changes in the conditions of competition warranted

conducting a full review. 73 Fed. Reg. 53444 (Sept. 16, 2008). 

 8

 We note that subject producer Tianjin Changie did not enter an appearance in this five-year review. We also

note that Tianjin Changjie submitted a letter to the Commission dated March 23, 2009, seeking revocation of the

order at issue in this five-year review. 

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports into the

United States of saccharin from the People’s Republic of China (“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.

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2003, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially

injured by reason of less than fair value imports (“LTFV”) of saccharin from China.1 2

 Subsequently, the

U.S. Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of saccharin from China.3

The Commission’s original determination was not appealed.

The Commission instituted this five-year review on June 2, 2008.4

 The Commission received a

response to the notice of institution from PMC Specialties Group, Inc. (“PMC”), the sole domestic

saccharin producer, and also one of the primary importers of subject merchandise during the review

period.5

 The Commission received one respondent interested party response to the notice of institution

from Rit-Chem Co., Inc. (“Rit-Chem”), an importer of the subject merchandise during the original

investigation. The Commission, on September 5, 2008, found that domestic producer PMC’s individual

response was adequate, and that the domestic interested party group response was adequate. The

Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response to the notice of institution

was inadequate because it did not receive a response to the notice of institution from any Chinese subject

producer.

6

 However, the Commission found that changes in the conditions of competition warranted

conducting a full review.7

PMC filed prehearing and posthearing briefs, presented witnesses at the hearing, and submitted

final comments. Mr. Dennis Delaney, sales manager at TR International, Inc. (“TR International”), a

chemical trading company based in Seattle, testified at the hearing on behalf of Chinese subject producer

Tianjin Changjie Chemical Company (“Tianjin Changjie”).8

 Although not a party to this review, ***
 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp.

v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); 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).

 11 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 at 4 (Jul. 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 12 CR at I-10; PR at I-7.

 13 CR at I-11; PR at I-8.

4

submitted two letters to the Commission dated January 30, 2009, and March 25, 2009. *** also

submitted a posthearing written statement.

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, the Commission defines “the

domestic like product” and the “industry.”9

 The Tariff Act defines “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.”10 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the

like product definition from the original determination and any previous reviews and consider whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit that definition.11

A. Product Description

Commerce has defined the imported product subject to the order under review as follows:

saccharin. Saccharin is a non-nutritive sweetener used in beverages and

foods, personal care beverages and foods, personal care products such as

toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and animal feeds. It is also used in

metalworking fluids. There are four primary chemical compositions of

saccharin: (1) sodium saccharin (American Chemical Society Chemical

Abstract Service (CAS) Registry #128-44-9); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS

Registry #6485-34-3); (3) acid (or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry #81-

07-2); and (4) research grade saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced and

imported grades of saccharin from the PRC are sodium and calcium

saccharin, which are available in granular, powder, spray-dried powder, and

liquid forms. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable

under subheading 2925.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) and includes all types of saccharin imported under

this HTSUS subheading, including research and specialized grades.12

Made from petroleum-based organic chemicals, saccharin is a chemical additive that is used

primarily as a sweetener.13 First synthesized in 1879, it has been used in the United States as a sugar

substitute since 1885, primarily in food and beverage (either commercially added prior to consumption

or personally added at the time of consumption) and in personal care products such as toothpaste and
 14 CR at I-11; PR at I-8.

 15 CR at I-11; PR at I-8.

 16 CR at I-11; PR at I-8.

 17 CR at I-11; PR at I-8.

 18 CR at I-11; PR at I-8. 

 19 Original Determination at 6.

 20 Original Determination at 6; See also, Saccharin from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1013 (Preliminary), USITC Pub.

3535 (Sept. 2002), at 5-7. 

 21 Original Determination at 6.

 22 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

5

mouthwash.14 By weight, it is about 350 times sweeter than sugar.15 It is also used as an additive in

adhesives and in metalworking fluids to facilitate electroplating.16 End users in the food and beverage

markets are primarily soft-drink manufacturers and manufacturers of table-top sweetener packets for

restaurants, airlines, and other firms serving beverages to the public.17 The auto and auto parts

industries consume saccharin in electroplating chrome bumpers and accessories. Saccharin is also used

in pharmaceuticals, animal feed, tobacco, and food mixes.18

In the original determination, the Commission found one domestic like product consisting of all

forms of saccharin, coextensive with Commerce’s scope.19 The Commission noted that, in the

preliminary phase of the investigation, it had found one domestic like product consisting of all forms of

saccharin based upon the similarity in physical characteristics and uses, general interchangeability,

common channels of distribution, common manufacturing facilities and production process, and general

similarity in price.20 The Commission further observed that, in the final phase of the investigation, no

party had argued the Commission should revisit its like product definition nor had any facts arisen that

would otherwise indicate the Commission should do so.21

C. Analysis and Conclusion

In this five-year review, no facts have arisen that would indicate the Commission should revisit

its original like product finding, nor has any party argued the Commission should do so. Accordingly,

we find that the domestic like product consists of all forms of saccharin, which is coextensive with the

scope.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND RELATED PARTIES

A. Domestic Industry

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

{w}hole 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.”22 In deciding

whether a firm qualifies as a domestic producer, the Commission generally has analyzed 

the overall nature of a firm’s production-related activities in the United States, although productionrelated activity at minimum levels could be insufficient to constitute domestic production. The

Commission generally considers six factors:

(1) source and extent of the firm's capital investment;

(2) technical expertise involved in U.S. production activities;
 23 See, e.g., Brake Rotors from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-744 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 4009 (June 2008) at

8, n. 39.

 24 See, e.g., Pure and Alloy Magnesium from Canada and Pure Magnesium from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-309-AB and 731-TA-696 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3859 (July 2006) at 14, 44 (not finding diecasters to be

“producers”); Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, Inv. No. T31-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 (December 2005) at 10-14; Sebacic Acid from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-653 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3775 (May 2005) at 12-14; Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Par-Phenylene Terepthalamide from the

Netherlands, Inv. No. 731-TA-652 (Review), USITC Pub. 3394 (February 2001); Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate

from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-387-391, 731-TA-816-821 (Final), USITC

Pub. 3273 at 9 (January 2000). See also Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Germany and Japan, Inv. Nos. 731-

TA-736-737 (Final) USITC Pub. 2988 at 7-8 (August 1996). Commission practice has not clearly established a

specific level of U.S. value added, or product finished value, required to qualify as a domestic producer; Aramid

Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands, Inv. No. 731-TA-652 (Final), USITC

Pub. 2783 at I-8-I-9 & n.34 (June 1994) (“no single factor -- including value added -- is determinative and . . . value

added information becomes more meaningful when other production activity indicia are taken into account”); Low

Fuming Brazing Copper Wire and Rod from New Zealand, Inv. No. 731-TA-246 (Final), USITC Pub. 1779

(November 1985) (the Commission concluded that 20 percent value added by flux coaters was sufficient); Low

Fuming Brazing Copper Wire and Rod from South Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-246 (Final), USITC Pub. 1790 (January

1986) (value added in the United States was 10 to 20 percent). 

The Commission has also stated that a “modest percentage of domestically sourced parts or raw materials as

a percentage of cost does not necessarily mean that a firm is not a domestic producer.” Certain All Terrain Vehicles

from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-388 (Final), USITC Pub. 2163 (March 1989) at 13-14. Conversely, the Commission

has decided not to include a firm in the domestic industry where its operations contributed only a “minor percentage

of the total value” of the product. Certain Radio Paging and Alerting Devices from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-102

(Final), USITC Pub. 1410 (August 1983) (operations involved assembly and soldering of foreign sourced parts

involving little technical skill). See also, Color Television Receivers from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Inv.

Nos. 731-TA-134 and 135 (Final), USITC Pub. 1514 (April 1984) at 7-8 (Commission emphasized for the first time

that no single factor--including value added--is determinative).

 25 See Brake Rotors from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-744 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 4009 (June 2008) at 8, n.

39 (“[T]he statute does not set any minimum benchmark on how much domestic consumption must be supplied by a

U.S. producer before such a producer may be considered a part of an ‘industry.’ Indeed, the statute contemplates, in

certain circumstances, through its material retardation of the establishment of an industry provision, that there may

be no current production, yet an industry may be found to exist.”).

 26 USITC Pub. 3606 at 10. In the original investigation, no party raised the issue of whether PMC was engaged in 

sufficient production-related activities to qualify as a domestic producer of saccharin.

6

(3) value added to the product in the United States;

(4) employment levels;

(5) quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States; and 

(6) any other costs and activities in the United States directly leading to production of

the like product.23

No single factor is determinative and the Commission may consider any other factors it deems relevant

in light of the specific facts of any investigation.24 The Commission has also rejected the notion that a

domestic producer must demonstrate a certain minimum amount of U.S. consumption to be considered a

“producer.”25 

In the original investigation, the Commission defined the domestic industry as PMC, the sole

domestic producer of saccharin.26 Although not a party to this five-year review, *** submitted a written
 27 *** Statement at 8-13. 

 28 See e.g., PMC Final Comments at 4-5 n.1. 

 29 CR at I-14; PR at I-10.

 30 CR at I-15; PR at I-11.

 31 Both the Maumee continuous process and the Remsen-Fahlberg process are used in China. CR at I-14. 

 32 CR at I-14; PR at I-10.

 33 PMC Prehearing Br. at 14. 

 34 See e.g., PMC Posthearing Br, Exh.1 at 34-35.

 35 CR at I-15; PR at I-11.

 36 PMC Final Comments at 4-5 n.1.

 37 CR at I-15; PR at I-11.

 38 CR at I-15; PR at I-11.

 39 PMC’s capital expenditures increased from *** in 2003 to *** in 2004 to *** in 2005, fell to *** in 2006 and

2007, and then increased to *** in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1. In the original investigation, PMC’s capital

expenditures declined substantially during the period, falling from *** in 2000 to *** in 2002. Original CR/PR at

Table VI-4.

 40 CR/PR at Table C-1; Original CR/PR at Table VI-4.

7

statement challenging PMC’s status as a domestic producer of saccharin.27 In its final comments, PMC

disputes *** assertions and claims that it qualifies as a domestic producer of saccharin.28

Two production processes are currently in use worldwide to produce saccharin: the Maumee

process, a continuous-production method that was developed in the United States and that has been used

domestically during the review period, and the older Remsen-Fahlberg process, a batch-production

method using different starting materials, which is the predominant method used worldwide.29 Until

mid-2006, PMC used the continuous Maumee process at its sole production facility located in

Cincinnati, Ohio.30 As discussed below, PMC modified its production process for saccharin and no

longer uses the continuous Maumee process; instead, PMC’s new process for producing saccharin

involves mostly post-Maumee refining and is currently being done on a batch (not continuous) basis.31

According to PMC, the important advantages of the Maumee process (relative to the RemsenFahlberg process) include the following: ***.32

Prior to mid-2006, the Maumee process used by PMC used methyl anthranilate (MA) and sulfur

dioxide as key raw materials. In mid-2006, PMC modified its Maumee production process for

saccharin; according to PMC, this reengineering was intended to avoid using or producing certain

hazardous chemicals (e.g., chlorine, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia), and therefore to make its saccharin

production process safer and more environmentally friendly.33 According to PMC, this process also

allows it to manufacture saccharin more efficiently and more cost-effectively.34 PMC states that its new

Maumee process converts *** into saccharin, and that ***35 ***36 PMC worked in conjunction with

***37 and in 2008, ***38

Based on the aforementioned six-factor test we generally consider in assessing whether a firm

engages in sufficient production-related activities in the United States to be considered a domestic

producer, we find that PMC qualifies as a domestic producer, although the issue is close. 

Capital investment. PMC’s capital expenditures were relatively low in this five-year review,

increasing from *** in 2003 to $*** in 2008.39 Nevertheless, PMC’s total capital expenditures during

the five-year review period were approximately $*** below its total capital expenditures during the

original three-year period of investigation.40 PMC also had *** capital expenditures in 2003, 2006, and
 41 CR/PR at Table C-1; Original CR/PR at Table VI-4.

 42 OINV Trip Notes, PMC Responses to Plant Trip Questions at 2 (Feb. 3, 2009) (Cynthia Trainor).

 43 CR/PR at Table III-12.

 44 See e.g., CR/PR at Table III-12 and Original CR/PR at Table VI-4. We note that at the hearing, there was

testimony that PMC’s new process was “not extremely capital intensive, [but] did require a large amount of research

and development.” Hearing Tr. at 42 (Kerwin). 

 45 CR/PR at Figure I-3.

 46 CR/PR at Figure I-3. The end product is food grade sodium saccharin. CR at III-4; PR at III-2.

 47 CR/PR at Table III-10.

 48 The number of production and related workers dropped from *** in 2003 to *** in 2004 to *** in 2005,

increased to *** in 2006, dropped to *** in 2007, and then increased to *** in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

According to PMC, as of March 2009, it employs *** full-time and *** part-time workers in the production of

saccharin. See, e.g., PMC Posthearing Br., Exh. 1 at 22.

 49 Derived from CR/PR at Table III-11.

 50 Derived from CR/PR at Table III-11.

 51 The estimate of PMC’s value added for 2008 is based on comparing PMC's conversion costs (direct labor and

other factory costs) to its total cost of goods sold. 

 52 Chairman Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Pinkert do not join in this analysis of value

added by PMC. They find that, although comparing conversion costs to total cost of goods sold can be an

appropriate approach for determining the amount of value added, it is not appropriate given the information of record

in the instant review – PMC’s re-engineered saccharin production process may well involve costs that do not add

significantly to the value of the raw material inputs. They note in this regard that the raw materials used by PMC in

the re-engineered process generally have a higher value than that indicated by the available prices for saccharin,

domestic and imported, over the period of review.

 ***

 Thus, in Chairman Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Pinkert’s view, the amount of value

added by PMC set forth in the text is overstated. Nevertheless, the information of record does not permit a

contemporaneous calculation of the difference between the cost of the raw materials used by PMC under the reengineered process and a non-aberrational domestic price for the finished product. Chairman Aranoff, Vice

Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Pinkert are therefore unable to rely on the valued-added factor in determining

(continued...)

8

2007.41 PMC’s minimal capital expenditures included ***42 However, we note that PMC had research

and development (“R&D”) expenses each year of the review period and that they increased every year

since 2005, peaking at $*** in 2008.43 Its annual R&D expenditures in 2005 through 2008 are greater

than in any year of the original period of investigation ***.44

Technical expertise. PMC’s new production process would appear to require less expertise than

its older start-to-finish production. As noted above, PMC purchases its primary raw material input for

producing saccharin, ***, from China. PMC ***.45 PMC then performs ***.46 Accordingly, PMC’s

***. 

Employment levels. During the review period, the number of PMC’s production and related

workers (“PRWs”) decreased irregularly but more substantially than in the original investigation,

although PMC has never employed large numbers of workers. During the original investigation,

PMC’s PRWs declined from *** workers in 2000 to *** workers in 2002.47 During the review period,

PMC’s workforce declined from *** workers in 2003 to just *** workers in 2008.48

Value Added. Value added represents the conversion costs that PMC used to transform *** into

saccharin. With respect to its “old” Maumee production process, PMC’s value added represented ***

percent of total costs in 2006.49 With respect to its “new” and reengineered Maumee production

process, PMC’s value added represented *** percent of total costs in 2008.50 51 52
 52 (...continued)

whether PMC qualifies as a domestic producer. They find based on the Commission’s analysis of the other relevant

factors that PMC does qualify as a domestic producer.

 53 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 54 Commission practice has not clearly established a specific level of U.S. value added, or product finished value,

required to qualify as a domestic producer; Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the

Netherlands, Inv. No. 731-TA-652 (Final), USITC Pub. 2783 at I-8-I-9 & n.34 (June 1994) ("no single factor --

including value added -- is determinative and . . . value added information becomes more meaningful when other

production activity indicia are taken into account”); Low Fuming Brazing Copper Wire and Rod from New Zealand,

Inv. No. 731-TA-246 (Final), USITC Pub. 1779 (November 1985) (the Commission concluded that 20 percent value

added by flux coaters was sufficient); Low Fuming Brazing Copper Wire and Rod from South Africa, Inv. No. 731-

TA-246 (Final), USITC Pub. 1790 (January 1986) (value added in the United States was 10 to 20 percent). 

The Commission has also stated that a “modest percentage of domestically sourced parts or raw materials as

a percentage of cost does not necessarily mean that a firm is not a domestic producer.” Certain All Terrain Vehicles

from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-388 (Final), USITC Pub. 2163 (March 1989) at 13-14. Conversely, the Commission

has decided not to include a firm in the domestic industry where its operations contributed only a “minor percentage

of the total value” of the product. Certain Radio Paging and Alerting Devices from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-102

(Final), USITC Pub. 1410 (August 1983) (operations involved assembly and soldering of foreign sourced parts

involving little technical skill). See also, Color Television Receivers from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Inv.

Nos. 731-TA-134 and 135 (Final), USITC Pub. 1514 (April 1984) at 7-8 (Commission emphasized for the first time

that no single factor– including value added– is determinative).

 55 Should the order remain in place that long, the Commission will have occasion to revisit the nature of the

domestic industry, conditions of competition in this market, and the question of whether PMC performs sufficient

production-related activities to qualify as a domestic producer, in the next five-year review. We also note that the

Commission may self-initiate a changed circumstances review at an earlier date if it receives information that shows

changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of its determination. See 19 U.S.C. §1675(b); 19 C.F.R..

§207.45. See also, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from India and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 751-TA28-29, USITC Pub. 3813 (Nov. 2005). We also observe that, notwithstanding our finding that PMC is currently

performing sufficient production-related activities to qualify as a domestic producer, given the costs and technical

challenges associated with its production process PMC could reassess its decision to continue producing saccharin

even with the order in place. 

9

Quantity and Type of Parts Sourced in the United States. During the review period, PMC

sourced the primary raw material input, ***, from *** in China. 

Other Costs. Besides converting *** to saccharin, there are minimal other costs associated with

PMC’s saccharin production. 

 Although the issue is extremely close, we find, on balance, that PMC’s operations, although

only batch production and smaller in scale compared to the original investigation, nevertheless

constitute sufficient production-related activities to qualify it as a domestic producer. During the review

period, PMC did produce and sell commercial volumes of saccharin. On the other hand, its employment

and capital investment were low.53 As noted above, PMC purchases the primary raw material input for

producing saccharin *** from *** and PMC’s *** production process is relatively simple and involves

considerably fewer chemical reactions than its former process. The value added by PMC (*** percent

of total costs in 2008) may be overstated.54 Nevertheless, PMC is currently employing workers,

operating production equipment to produce saccharin, and it has devoted some capital to bring this

process on line rather than cease production entirely. On balance, and based on the record developed in

this review, we find that PMC’s production operations, although limited, are sufficient to qualify PMC

as a domestic producer under the traditional six-factor test.55 
 56 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party are as follows:

(1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer;

(2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the

firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue

production and compete in the U.S. market; and

(3) the position of the related producer vis-à-vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion

of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry.

See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d

809 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

 57 Original Determination at 7 n.18. 

 58 Id. 

 59 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 60 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 61 See e.g., PMC Final Comments at 5-7.

 62 The Commission typically has not found appropriate circumstances exist to exclude the sole domestic producer

as a related party. See e.g. Tetrahydrofufuryl Alcohol from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Preliminary), USITC

Pub. 3620 (August 2003) at n. 20; Industrial Nitrocellulose from Brazil, China, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, the

United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-96 and 439-445 (Review), USITC Pub. 3342 (August 2000) at

8; Drafting Machines from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-432 (Review), USITC Pub. 3252 (November 1999) at 5.

10

B. Related Parties 

Section 771(4)(B) of the Act allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to

exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject

merchandise, or which are themselves importers.56 

In the original investigation, no party argued that PMC should be excluded from the domestic

industry as a related party. Explaining that PMC’s imports were equivalent to only *** percent of its

domestic production in 2001 (and that PMC did not import subject merchandise in any other year during

the period of investigation), the Commission concluded that “PMC’s interests lie primarily in

production and not importation.”57 Accordingly, the Commission found that appropriate circumstances

did not exist to exclude PMC from the domestic industry as a related party.58

In this review, PMC is a related party because it was an importer of subject merchandise during

the period of review.59 Although PMC’s production ***.60 PMC, however, claims that it stopped

importing subject merchandise from China in May 2008, and that it has not imported saccharin from

any source (subject or non-subject) since July 2008.61 Moreover, PMC is the sole domestic producer of

saccharin.62 Accordingly, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude PMC from the

domestic industry as a related party.
 63 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 64 SAA at 883-84. 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.” Id. at 883.

 65 Although 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.

 66 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 67 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views

of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362

(Review) and 731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 68 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in these reviews and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

11

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER ON SACCHARIN FROM CHINA WERE

REVOKED

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

imports of subject merchandise from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to the domestic industry producing saccharin within a reasonably foreseeable time.

A. Legal Standards

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

antidumping or countervailing duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or

subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that

revocation of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”63 The

Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No.

103-316 (1994) (“SAA”) states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a

counterfactual 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.”64 Thus, the likelihood standard is

prospective in nature.65 The CIT has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of

the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.66 67 68
 69 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 70 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.

 71 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 72 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce has not made duty absorption findings with respect the order under

review. See, e.g., CR at I-13 at n.20.

 73 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 74 See, e.g., CR at IV-8 and IV-11.

 75 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) 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

19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”).

 76 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

(continued...)

12

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.”69

According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will

exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”70

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

antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, 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 orders are revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated.”71 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).72 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.73

The Commission has complete data coverage for the domestic industry, i.e., PMC. On the other

hand, the Commission received a complete foreign producer questionnaire response from only one of

five subject producers in China.74 Accordingly, we have relied on the facts otherwise available when

appropriate in this review, which consist primarily of information from the original investigation,

information submitted in this five-year review, and information available from published sources.75 76
 76 (...continued)

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 77 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 78 Original Determination at 8.

 79 Id. 

 80 Id.

 81 Id.

 82 Id. 

 83 Id. 

 84 Id. 

 85 Id. at 9.

 86 Id.

 87 Id. 

13

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

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.”77

1. Original Investigation

The Commission discussed several conditions of competition relevant to its inquiry in its

original determination. First, it noted that, pursuant to a study that found saccharin to be a cancercausing agent in rats, the FDA banned the use of saccharin in food and beverages in 1977.78 Shortly

thereafter, Congress lifted the ban, but subjected the sale of saccharin to certain requirements.79 In

particular, the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act, renewed through May 1997, mandated that health

warning labels be placed prominently on all products containing saccharin.80 After further study,

evidence supported the conclusion that saccharin does not cause cancer in humans, and thereafter the

FDA approved saccharin for general use.81 On December 21, 2000, President Clinton signed the

SWEETEST Act, which removed the warning label on all products containing saccharin.82

Second, the Commission found that the large packaged-soft-drink manufacturers, such as Coca

Cola and Pepsi, switched from saccharin to aspartame in their products that were bottled for retail sale

in 1983, six years after the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act of 1977 requiring a warning label on

products containing saccharin took effect.83 However, because of the limited shelf life of aspartame, the

large packaged-soft-drink manufacturers continued to use saccharin in beverages placed in dispensers,

which did not require a warning label.84

Third, the Commission found that, since saccharin is an intermediate product that is used in

various consumer products and agricultural and industrial applications, overall U.S. demand for

saccharin is derived from the demand for the products that use it as an input.85 The Commission noted

that overall demand for saccharin as measured by apparent U.S. consumption had increased from ***

pounds in 2000 to *** pounds in 2001 and to *** pounds in 2002.86 The Commission also found that

there was little seasonality in the demand for saccharin in most uses.87
 88 Id. 

 89 Id. 

 90 Id.

 91 Id. at 10.

 92 Id. 

 93 Id. 

 94 CR at II-3; PR at II-2. 

 95 CR at II-3 to II-4; PR at II-2. 

 96 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 97 PMC Prehearing Br. at 16.

 98 PMC Prehearing Br. at 16-17.

14

Fourth, the Commission found that PMC was the only domestic saccharin producer and that

PMC’s capacity for producing saccharin had *** throughout the period of investigation at *** pounds.88

 However, the Commission noted that PMC’s production fell throughout the period of investigation.89

Fifth, in addition to aspartame, the Commission found that other sweeteners may be substituted

for saccharin including sugar, acesulfame-K, tagatose, alitame, and sucralose. Since these sweeteners

are much more expensive than saccharin, the Commission noted that their substitution is often not

considered economically feasible in many applications.90

Sixth, the Commission also noted that, during the 1993-94 antidumping duty investigation,

there were questions concerning the quality of the Chinese product.91 However, the Commission found

that evidence on the record indicated that Chinese producers had corrected any quality problems that

may have existed and met the qualification requirements of U.S. customers.92

Seventh and finally, in its conditions of competition analysis, the Commission found that nonsubject imports had accounted for *** percent of apparent consumption in 2000, *** percent in 2001,

and *** percent in 2002.93

2. Current Review

In this five-year review, we have considered a number of likely conditions of competition in the

event the antidumping duty order regarding imports of saccharin from China were revoked.

a. Demand in the U.S. Market

As in the original investigation, because saccharin is an intermediate product that is used in

various consumer products and agricultural and industrial applications, overall U.S. demand for

saccharin is derived from the demand for the products that use it as an input.94 These products include

soft drinks, table top sweeteners, certain foods, toothpaste, mouthwash, pharmaceuticals, animal feed,

herbicides, and metal-working fluids.95

During the review period, apparent U.S. consumption of saccharin fluctuated from year to year

but was higher in 2008 (*** pounds) than in 2003 (*** pounds).96 PMC notes that between 2003 and

2007, apparent U.S. consumption was below its level in 2002, the last full year of the original period of

investigation.97 We note that although apparent U.S. consumption of saccharin did increase

significantly in 2008, the degree of the increase is overstated because there were significant increases in

importer inventories during that year.98 
 99 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 100 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 101 PMC Prehearing Br. at 13-15.

 102 CR at I-15; PR at I-11. 

 103 PMC reported that it decided ***. CR at III-5; PR at III-2. In addition to saccharin, ***. See e.g.,

Telephone/Meeting/Trip Notes, Industry Analyst Telephone Notes, March 6 and April 28, 2009. PMC also has

identified two other Chinese producers of ***. Hearing Tr. at 80 (Bouligaraki).

 104 CR/PR at Table C-1; OINV Trip Notes, PMC Responses to Plant Trip Questions at 2 (Feb. 3, 2009) (Cynthia

Trainor).

 105 CR/PR at Table III-1 n.1.

 106 CR at III-9; PR at III-3; PMC Responses to Staff Questions of April 20, 2009, pp. 1-2.

 107 CR/PR at Table III-4.

 108 CR at III-9; PR at III-3; PMC Responses to Staff Questions of April 20, 2009, pp. 1-2.

 109 CR at III-9 n.25; PR at III-3 n.25.

 110 CR/PR at Table III-4.

 111 PMC Responses to Staff Questions of April 20, 2009, pp. 1-2.

 112 PMC initially projected that it would produce *** of saccharin in 2009 and incrementally increase that output

in each year through 2013. PMC Prehearing Br. at 20. Subsequently, however, PMC revised downward its

projection for 2009 production to ***. PMC Posthearing Br., Exh. 1 at 22. PMC also reports that it has produced

just *** of saccharin in the first quarter of 2009, and projects that it will produce *** of saccharin in April 2009. 

(continued...)

15

b. Supply in the U.S. Market

As in the original investigation, PMC is the only domestic saccharin producer. PMC’s capacity

declined by *** percent overall during the review period, falling from *** pounds in 2003 through 2005

to *** pounds in 2006, declining to *** pounds in 2007, and then increasing to *** pounds in 2008.99

PMC’s production fell by *** percent overall during the review period, steadily declining from ***

pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2007, and barely increasing to *** pounds in 2008.100

These very substantial declines in PMC’s capacity and production during the review period

(especially since 2006) were the result of PMC’s ***. PMC claims that it was necessary for the

company to ***101 As discussed above, PMC now uses a reengineered Maumee process for producing

saccharin ***;102 PMC ***.103 

During the review period, PMC made capital investments in terms of retooling its Cincinnati

facility and purchasing small amounts of new equipment for its reengineered Maumee production

process. As noted above, these capital expenditures were small and included *** and bringing its

reengineered Maumee production process on-line.104

After its July 2006 shutdown, PMC did not produce for the remainder of 2006 nor for the entire

year of 2007.105 In 2008, PMC resumed saccharin production using its modified process, but was only

able to use a ***.106 Production occurred for only three months of 2008 (June-August) and at very

modest levels (*** pounds).107 Moreover, PMC encountered unacceptable levels of impurities in its

output that necessitated further changes to the production process to remove the impurities from the

***.108 In addition, PMC claims that *** experienced difficulty producing the quantity of *** needed

for it to reach projected saccharin production.109 Production resumed in 2009 but first quarter

production was only *** pounds.110 PMC claims that it has now resolved the problems relating to

impurities and that it has once again resumed saccharin production, albeit still via limited batch 

production.111 112 
 112 (...continued)

PMC Posthearing Br. at Ex. 3. 

 113 CR at IV-13; PR at IV-7.

 114 CR/PR at Tables IV-5 & C-1 

 115 CR/PR at Table I-2. 

 116 CR at V-4 & n.3; PR at V-3 n.3; CR at IV-13; PR at IV-7. 

 117 See e.g., Hearing Tr. at 24.

 118 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 119 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 120 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

16

***.113 Chinese subject producers’ most recent reported capacity, *** pounds in 2007, was

almost seven times PMC’s highest reported capacity level during the review period, and dwarfed PMC’s

most recent reported capacity of *** pounds in 2008.114 Among the five principal Chinese producers,

subject producer Shanghai Fortune received a zero dumping margin in its most recent administrative

review; therefore, imports produced by Shanghai Fortune, while still subject to the order, currently

enter the U.S. market at a zero deposit rate.115

Prices for the domestic like product and subject imports were substantially higher in 2008 than

in earlier years of the review period. Industry participants attributed this to a world-wide shortage of

saccharin due to a number of factors including the temporary, government-ordered closure of the largest

Chinese subject producer (Suzhou Fine Chemicals Group Co., Ltd.) in October 2007, the temporary

shutdown of all subject producers from August until September of 2008 during the Beijing Olympic

Games, and ***.116 However, prices in 2009 are reportedly more in line with pre-2008 prices, and most

industry participants also reported that U.S. saccharin prices were unlikely to rise within the reasonably

foreseeable future.117 

*** led the domestic industry to lose considerable market share during the review period. 

Accordingly, non-subject imports’ market share increased by *** percentage points during the review

period, although subject imports gained substantially more market share than non-subject imports

during that time.118 Non-subject imports’ market share declined at the end of the review period, falling

from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, whereas subject imports more than doubled their

market share in the final year of the review period, increasing from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent

in 2008.119

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Subject Imports Is Likely to Lead

to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review 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.120 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.
 121 Original Determination at 10.

 122 Id. 

 123 Id. at 11.

 124 Id. 

 125 Id.

 126 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 127 While PMC was a relatively large importer of subject merchandise, it was responsible for *** of the increase

in the volume of subject imports during the review period. See e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-1 & III-7. 

 128 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 129 Non-subject imports’ market share (by volume) increased by 22.0 percentage points during the review period,

increasing from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 130 CR at IV-8; PR at IV-5.

 131 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-6.

17

In the original determination, the Commission found that the volume and market share of

subject imports increased substantially throughout the period of investigation, with the quantity of

subject imports more than doubling.121 Subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption (as

measured by quantity) increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001 and *** percent in

2002.122 At the same time, the domestic industry lost substantial market share. The domestic producer’s

share of apparent U.S. consumption fell ***, from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2002.123

Nearly all of the domestic industry’s loss of market share was gained by subject imports, as nonsubject

imports’ market share increased by only 3.7 percentage points over the period examined, from ***

percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2002.124 In light of the above, the Commission concluded that the

increased volumes of subject imports were significant both in absolute terms and relative to production

and consumption in the United States, and also found the increase in that volume to be significant.125

In this five-year review, subject imports maintained a growing and significant presence in the

U.S. market, even with the order in place. By quantity, subject imports increased their U.S. market

share by 35.1 percentage points during the review period, increasing from *** percent in 2003 to ***

percent in 2008.126 127

The domestic industry lost even more market share during the review period than it did in the

original investigation, in large part due to ***. By quantity, PMC’s share of apparent U.S. consumption

dropped by 57.0 percentage points during the review period, falling from *** percent in 2003 to ***

percent in 2008.128 Most of the domestic industry’s loss of market share was gained by subject imports,

as non-subject imports’ U.S. market share increased, but at a lower rate than the market share gained by

subject imports.129

As noted above, only one producer in China (Tianjin Changjie) submitted a questionnaire

response in this review.130 However, there are reportedly four other subject producers in China: 

Kaifeng Xinghua Fine Chemical Factory (“Kaifeng”), Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai

Fortune”), Suzhou Fine Chemicals Group Co., Ltd. (“Suzhou”), and Tianjin North Food (“Tianjin

North”). Industry consultancy reports indicate that total production capacity in China for all five

subject producers was *** pounds in 2007, the most recent year for which estimates are available,

whereas total production in that year was estimated to be *** pounds, and total exports were estimated

to be *** pounds.131 These production and capacity levels of Chinese subject producers greatly
 132 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-4 with CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

 133 Tianjin Changjie alone had the capacity to produce *** pounds of saccharin throughout the review period,

which substantially exceeded PMC’s capacity in every year of the review period. Moreover, Tianjin Changjie

produced between *** pounds and *** pounds of saccharin between 2003 and 2008, which substantially exceeded

PMC’s saccharin production throughout the review period. Also, Tianjin Changjie’s total exports to third-country

markets were substantially larger than PMC’s production throughout the review period. CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 134 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 135 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 136 See e.g., CR/PR at IV-6; PR at IV-5. 

 137 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 138 See e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

 139 See e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-9 & IV-6. 

 140 In its questionnaire response, subject producer Tianjin Changjie indicated that, ***. CR at IV-8; PR at IV-5;

CR at D-13 to D-14; PR at D-12 to D-13. Tianjin Changie also reported that, ***. See e.g., PMC Final Comments

at 12; CR at D-13 to D-14; PR at D-12 to D-13; Hearing Tr. at 127, 131, and 150. 

 141 PMC also argues that there is evidence of circumvention of the order during the review period. We note that,

in its administrative review proceeding before the Department of Commerce, PMC alleged that an Indian company,

Beta Udyog Ltd. (“Beta Udyog”), had “sold [Chinese] subject merchandise at less than normal value in the United

States during the period of review.” PMC Posthearing Br., Ex.1 at 25. Beta Udyog did not respond to Commerce’s

requests for information. Accordingly, Commerce included Beta Udyog in the final results of Commerce’s most

recent administrative review of the order covered in this five-year review. CR/PR at Table I-2. This circumvention

finding by Commerce provides additional evidence of continued interest in the U.S. market by Chinese saccharin

producers. 

 We also note that, at the hearing, Mr. Dennis Delaney, Sales Manager at TR International and a witness

testifying on behalf of subject producer Tianjin Changie, acknowledged “concerns about circumvention” as a factor

in his company’s decision not to import saccharin from third countries including Japan or Israel. Hearing Tr. at 133-

134. While such allegations concerning circumvention are part of the record in this review, we do not rely on them

to support our findings on the likely volume of imports in the event of revocation. 

18

exceeded those for PMC at any time during the review period, and also exceeded those of the subject

producers themselves during the original investigation period.132 133

Chinese subject producers were even more export-oriented during the review period than in the

original investigation. During the original investigation, total exports by reporting Chinese subject

producers ranged between *** pounds in 2000 and *** pounds in 2002.134 By 2007, total exports by

Chinese subject producers were estimated to have grown to *** pounds.135 During the review period,

Chinese subject producers exported between *** percent and *** percent of their total production.136

Moreover, Chinese subject producers had considerable excess capacity available during the

review period.137 Industry consultancy reports indicate that subject producers’ capacity utilization was

*** percent in 2007, with over *** pounds of unused capacity.138 This *** pounds of unused capacity

is approximately two-and-one-half times greater than the volume of total apparent U.S. consumption in

any given year during the review period.139 Subject producer Tianjin Changie reported that ***, and

that its capacity utilization was just *** percent in 2008, which represented *** pounds of excess

capacity or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008.140

As noted above, subject producers possessed ample excess capacity that could be directed to the

U.S. market if the order were revoked and subject imports maintained a significant and growing U.S.

presence throughout the review period, even with the antidumping duty order in place.141 Subject

producers also were highly, and increasingly, export-oriented over the review period. Moreover, as

discussed below, the United States is an attractive market for subject imports because of the prevailing

high prices for saccharin. In other words, subject producers have the ability and incentive to ship
 142 See 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.

 143 Original Determination at 12. 

 144 Id. 

 145 Id. 

 146 Id.

 147 Id. 

 148 Id.

 149 Id.

 150 Id.

 151 Id. 

 152 CR/PR at Tables II-3 & II-4.

 153 See, e.g., CR at II-8 to II-9; PR at II-5 to II-6; CR/PR at Table II-5.

19

significant volumes of saccharin to the United States if the order were revoked. For all of the foregoing

reasons, we find that the volume of subject imports is likely to be significant if the order were revoked. 

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the order under review were revoked,

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

subject imports as compared to the domestic like product 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 the domestic like product.142

In the original determination, the Commission found that the domestic like product and subject

merchandise were interchangeable and that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions.143

The Commission found that subject imports undersold the domestic product in all quarters and for all

five product categories for which price comparisons were available; the margins of underselling ranged

from 6.1 percent to 59.6 percent. 144 The Commission found this underselling to be significant.145

In the original determination, the Commission also found that there was significant price

suppression by reason of subject imports.146 PMC’s cost of goods sold relative to net sales increased

steadily over the period examined.147 The Commission found that PMC’s inability to increase prices to

meet rising costs was due to a significant degree to the increased volume of low-priced subject

imports.148 The Commission also found some evidence of price depression on the record, as domestic

prices for products 4 and 5 fell during the period of investigation, while the quantity of subject imports

rose.149 The Commission also noted that lost sales allegations totaling approximately $*** were

confirmed.150 In light of the large and increasing volumes of subject imports over the period, persistent

underselling, significant margins of underselling, evidence of price suppression and depression, and

confirmed lost sales allegations, the Commission found that subject imports had significant adverse

price effects.151

The record evidence in this review indicates that price continues to be an important factor in

purchasing decisions,152 and that the domestic like product and subject imports continue to be

interchangeable.153 The overwhelming majority of purchasers reported that the domestic like product
 154 Eight purchasers reported that U.S.-produced saccharin and subject merchandise were “always” or

“frequently” interchangeable, while just one purchaser reported that they were “sometimes” interchangeable, and

just one purchaser reported that they were “never” interchangeable. CR/PR at Table II-5. 

 155 CR at II-8; PR at II-5. 

 156 See, e.g., CR at V-4; PR at V-3.

 157 See, e.g., CR at V-13; PR at V-4 & CR/PR at Table V-6.

 158 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 128, 136 (“prices outside the U.S. have been much lower” and “European pricing is

much lower than U.S. pricing.”) (Delaney); See also, PMC Prehearing Br. at 32. While U.S. saccharin prices were

substantially higher in 2008 than earlier in the review period, we note that 2008 was reportedly aberrational in terms

of higher prices. Prices generally increased over the review period. While prices increased to a very large extent

during 2008, we note these prices involved relatively small sales quantities, and appear to have reflected a price

spike that was the result of a world-wide shortage of saccharin that we do not find likely to continue. CR at V-4; PR

at V-3. We also note that, if 2008 were excluded, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in *** of ***

quarterly price comparisons. CR at V-13; PR at V-4.

 159 As noted above, Mr. Dennis Delaney, Sales Manager at TR International, testified at the hearing on behalf of

subject producer Tianjin Changjie. Mr. Delaney testified that U.S. prices for saccharin would “come down

substantially” if the order were revoked. Hearing Tr. at 138. Mr. Delaney also testified that, if the order were

revoked, U.S. saccharin prices would decline because subject producers would enter the U.S. market at such low

prices. Hearing Tr. at 137-138. 

20

and subject imports were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.154 While there is information on

the record suggesting that some purchasers and importers may regard the subject merchandise as

inferior in quality to domestically produced saccharin,155 Chinese subject producers nevertheless

shipped significant volumes of saccharin into the U.S. market during the review period. 

In this review, the Commission collected pricing data on five different products that accounted

for almost 100 percent of PMC’s total reported U.S. commercial saccharin shipments and 4.5 percent of

subject imports between 2003 and 2008.156 These data indicate that, despite the discipline of the order,

there was still a majority of instances of underselling by subject imports (*** of *** possible

comparisons between subject imports and the domestic like product involving margins that ranged from

1.1 to 673.9 percent).157

The degree of underselling during the period of review under the discipline of the order,

together with the significant underselling during the original investigation, indicates that underselling is

likely to be significant if the order is revoked. Moreover, there is evidence that the U.S. market is

attractive for subject imports because of the relatively high U.S. prices for saccharin compared to other

markets.158 In light of the above, we find that the likely significant quantities of low-priced subject

imports would likely be priced aggressively to gain market share, and they would undersell the domestic

like product, and this underselling would significantly suppress and/or depress U.S. prices for

saccharin.159 For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that subject imports from China are likely to

have significant adverse price effects in the event that the order were revoked.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review 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 the following:

(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
 160 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 161 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 or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” 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.

 162 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.

 163 See, e.g., Original Determination at 17.

 164 PMC Posthearing Br., Exh. 1 at 14-15.

 165 PMC Posthearing Br., Exh. 1 at 14-15.

 166 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 167 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 168 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 169 CR/PR at Table C-1.

21

the domestic like product.160 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.161 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 were revoked.162

In the original investigation, the Commission found that by gaining significant market share in a

growing U.S. market at the expense of PMC, low-priced subject imports had a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry, as reflected in the declining levels of shipments, production, sales, and

employment, combined with increasing inventories and lack of profitability. The Commission also

found that any problems PMC had with delivery and quality issues were limited in scope and did not

detract from the significant adverse impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry.163

The domestic industry’s vulnerability in this five-year review must be assessed in light of the

unusual circumstances over the review period. As discussed above, PMC has struggled considerably to

ramp up its saccharin production after reengineering its Maumee process, resulting in significant periods

when it was not producing any saccharin. The new process, which involves considerably fewer

chemical steps and fewer employees than its previous method of saccharin production, has only been

operating for a few months and at very low production volumes. PMC acknowledges that ***164 PMC

claims that it has resolved ***.165 Nevertheless, it also concedes that it will not achieve the extremely

modest production targets it set for 2009 due to these difficulties. Due to the continual revisions to

PMC’s production process and production projections, the Commission is unable to determine whether

PMC is vulnerable. 

Most of PMC’s performance indicators declined during the review period, largely as a result of

***, as described above. PMC’s capacity declined by *** percent overall, falling from *** pounds in

2003 to *** pounds in 2008.166 PMC’s production fell by ***, dropping from *** pounds in 2003 to

*** pounds in 2007, and barely increasing to just *** pounds in 2008.167 The domestic industry’s

capacity utilization fell by 40.7 percentage points, dropping from *** percent in 2003 to just ***

percent in 2008.168 The domestic industry’s market share declined by 57.0 percentage points, falling

from *** percent in 2003 to just *** percent in 2008.169 
 170 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 171 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 172 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 173 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 174 PMC was profitable, albeit barely, in 2007 only because it produced no saccharin in 2007, and did not have

any production costs in that year, but was selling previously produced and imported saccharin out of inventory. 

CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 175 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 176 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 177 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 178 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 179 CR/PR at Table C-1.

22

U.S. shipments of the domestic like product fell by *** percent, dropping from *** pounds in

2003 to only *** pounds in 2008.170 The number of PMC’s PRWs, the number of PRW hours worked,

and worker productivity decreased overall during the review period. The number of workers declined

from *** workers in 2003 to just *** workers in 2008;171 the number of PRW hours worked dropped

from *** hours in 2003 to *** hours in 2008;172 and worker productivity declined from *** pounds per

hour in 2003 to *** pounds per hour in 2008.173

The domestic industry experienced operating losses in every year during the review period

except 2007 when its operating income was just $***.174 The domestic industry’s operating losses

ranged from $*** in 2008 to $*** in 2003.175 The industry’s operating income was *** percent in

2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and ***

percent in 2008.176 The domestic industry’s capital expenditures were nonexistent to minimal during the

review period, ranging from *** in 2003, 2006, and 2007 to a period-high of $*** in 2005.177

We find that revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry. As noted above, the volume of subject imports is likely to be significant if the order

were revoked, especially since subject imports represented a large and growing presence in the U.S.

market even with the order in place, and subject producers possessed substantial excess capacity and

were highly export-oriented during the review period. Subject imports undersold the domestic like

product in *** percent of price comparisons during the review period, even with the order in place, and

in *** percent of price comparisons during the original investigation when they were not under the

discipline of the order. Given the substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like

product, we find that, in the event of revocation, low-priced subject imports would likely increase in

absolute terms and market share at the expense of the domestic industry, significantly undersell the

domestic like product, and depress and suppress prices for the domestic like product. Accordingly, we

find that revocation of the order would likely have an adverse impact on the domestic industry,

including the domestic industry’s production, shipments, sales, market share, employment, and profits.

We also have considered the growing presence of non-subject imports in the U.S. market. The

United States remains an attractive market for subject imports; subject imports gained 35.1 percentage

points of market share during the review period, even under the handicap of the antidumping duty

order.178 Although non-subject imports’ market share increased by *** percentage points during the

review period, subject imports gained market share at a higher rate.179 Also, non-subject imports’

market share declined at the end of the review period, falling from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in

2008, whereas subject imports more than doubled their market share in the final year of the review
 180 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 181 PMC Posthearing Br., Exh. 1 at 45. 

 182 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 137 (Delaney) (“My opinion is that, especially the Koreans, they look at the U.S.

market and if the antidumping order is revoked, then prices are going to come down substantially and they may not

have a business anymore. They may not be able to enter – the Koreans may be out of this market.”).

 183 CR/PR at Table IV-1. 

23

period, increasing from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008.180 Non-subject imports from Korea,

which was the largest source of non-subject imports during the review period, actually declined from

3.4 million pounds in 2004 to 2.6 million pounds in 2008.181 182 Moreover, the average unit values

(“AUVs”) of non-subject imports were higher than the AUVs for subject imports in 2007 and 2008,

indicating that subject imports would likely be priced more aggressively than non-subject imports if the

order were revoked.183 We therefore find that subject imports are likely to have a significant adverse

impact upon the domestic industry if the order were revoked notwithstanding the growing presence of

non-subject imports in the U.S. market.

CONCLUSION

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

subject imports from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to

the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 1

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct a full review, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address www.usitc.gov). 

Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct an expedited or full review may also be found at the web site.

 2

 AD determination on China - 68 FR 27530, May 20, 2003, as amended by 68 FR 35383, July 13, 2003.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2008, the Commission gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (the Act), that it had instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty

order on saccharin from China would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a

domestic industry. Effective September 5, 2008, the Commission determined that it would conduct a full

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. Information relating to the background and schedule of

the review is provided in the following tabulation.1

Effective date Action

May 20, 2003

Commerce’s antidumping duty determination (68 FR 27530, May 20, 2003), 

amended by 68 FR 35383, June 13, 2003)

June 2, 2008 Commission’s institution of a review (73 FR 31504, June 2, 2008)

September 5, 2008 Commission’s decision to conduct a full review (73 FR 53444, September 16, 2008)

October 9, 2008 Commerce’s final results of an expedited review (73 FR 59604, October 9, 2008)

November 24, 2008 Commission’s scheduling of the review (73 FR 72837, December 1, 2008)

March 26, 2009 Commission’s hearing1

May 8, 2009 Date of the Commission’s vote

May 21, 2009 Commission’s determination and views were transmitted to Commerce

 1 App. B is a list of witnesses who appeared at the hearing.

The Original Investigation

On July 11, 2002, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of 

imports of saccharin from China that were alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value

(“LTFV”). In May 2003, Commerce made final an affirmative antidumping (“AD”) determination. The

Commission made a final affirmative injury determination in June 2003 and Commerce issued its

antidumping duty order thereafter.2

Previous Investigations

Saccharin was the subject of previous Commission antidumping investigations in 1977 and 1993-

94. In the 1977 investigations, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was not
 3 Saccharin from Japan and the Republic of Korea, Investigations No. AA1921-174 and 175, USITC Pub. 846,

December 1977. Sherwin-Williams Co. (whose saccharin production unit was subsequently purchased by PMC, the

petitioner in the 2002 investigation) filed the complaint which led to these investigations. 

 4 Saccharin from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-675 (Final), USITC Pub. 2824, December 1994. PMC was

the petitioner in these investigations. 

 5

 PMC was the petitioner.

 6

 68 FR 40906, July 9, 2003.

 7

 On April 10, 2006, in response to a request by PMC on June 7, 2005, and initated by Commerce on October 26,

2005, Commerce issued a preliminary scope ruling that insoluble (acid) saccharin from China, converted in Israel

into any other form of saccharin, is within the scope of the antidumping duty order covering saccharin from China. 

On September 29, 2006, PMC withdrew its request for a scope clarification, and request that Commerce terminate or

rescind the scope inquiry. When asked at the hearing why PMC withdrew this request, PMC’s response was that it

“just decided that it needed to place its efforts and money to engineer our process instead of diluting our efforts and

money to pursue that case.” (Transcript, p. 50 (Bouligaraki)).

 8

 On May 13, 2008, the Commission received a changed circumstances review request from Cumberland Packing

Corp. (“Cumberland”), a domestic user of saccharin and Helm New York, Inc. (“Helm”), an importer of record,

citing cessation of PMC saccharin production mid-2006 and an alleged joint venture among PMC and two

substantial producers of saccharin in China. (Request for changed Circumstances Review and Revocation of

Antidumping Duty Order Issued in Saccharin From the People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed. Reg. 40906 (July 8,

2003). On June 2, 2008, this request was withdrawn. ***. (Cumberland’s purchasers’ questionnaire response,

section II-3b.)

 9

 73 FR 31504, June 2, 2008, and 73 FR 31974, June 5, 2008, respectively. On September 5, 2008, the

Commission determined to conduct a full review. 73 FR 53444, September 16, 2008.

I-2

injured or likely to be injured by reason of LTFV imports from Japan and Korea.3

 In the 1993-94

investigations, involving China and Korea, Commerce determined that there were no sales at LTFV of

saccharin from Korea and the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was not

materially injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the United

States was not materially retarded, by reason of LTFV imports of saccharin from China.4

 

In July 2002, the U.S. saccharin industry filed for relief from alleged LTFV imports of saccharin

from China.5

 The Commission published its affirmative final determination on imports of saccharin from

China in June 2003. An antidumping duty order covering imports of saccharin from China was issued in

July 2003.6 7 8

 On June 2, 2008, Commerce and the Commission initiated the current five-year “sunset”

review of the antidumping duty order on China.9

Summary Data

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigation and from this review. 
I-3

Table I-1

Saccharin: Summary data from the original investigation and the current review, 2000-02 and 2003-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per pound)

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Importer’s share:

China1 2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other countries1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Importer’s share:

China1 2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other countries1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports fromChina:2

Quantity 1,409 2,598 3,546 15 3 2 226 1,115 2,951

Value 2,353 4,011 5,574 26 8 13 736 3,433 28,863

Unit value $1.67 $1.54 $1.57 $1.72 $2.70 $7.03 $3.26 $3.08 $9.78

All other countries:

Quantity 1,363 1,490 1,767 2,982 3,937 4,608 4,275 4,931 5,396

Value 2,963 3,195 3,497 6,795 10,211 14,297 13,315 15,705 55,618

Unit value $2.17 $2.14 $1.98 $2.28 $2.59 $3.10 $3.11 $3.18 $10.31

All countries:

Quantity 2,772 4,088 5,313 2,997 3,940 4,610 4,501 6,046 8,346

Value 5,316 7,206 9,071 6,821 10,219 14,310 14,050 19,137 84,481

Unit value $1.92 $1.76 $1.71 $2.28 $2.59 $3.10 $3.12 $3.17 $10.12

Source: Compiled from data submitted in PMC’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response and from official import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce in

both the original investigation and in the current review.
I-4

Table I-1--Continued

Saccharin: Summary data from the original investigation and the current review, 2000-02 and

2003-08

* * * * * * *

Statutory Criteria and Organization of the Report

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

Commission shall 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. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . .

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) 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.
I-5

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise 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.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) 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.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.”

Information obtained during the course of the review that relates to the above factors is presented

throughout this report. A summary of data collected in the review is presented in appendix C; table C-1

presents data on the total U.S. market for saccharin. U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire

response of the one firm that accounted for all U.S. production of saccharin during 2003-08. U.S. import

data are based on official Commerce statistics for all sources. Responses by the U.S. producer, importers,

and purchasers of saccharin to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing

antidumping duty order and the likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix D.

COMMERCE’S ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION AND ITS REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews

China

Commerce completed two antidumping duty order administrative reviews with regard to subject

imports of saccharin from China. Information on Commerce’s administrative reviews of the subject order

on China are presented in table I-2. 
I-6

Table I-2

Saccharin: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for China

FR citation Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

71 FR 7515 (February 13, 2006) 12/27/2002-6/30/2004

Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. 17.05

All others1 329.33

72 FR 51800 (September 11, 2007) 7/1/2005-6/30/2006

Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. 0.00

All others1 329.33

 1 The all other rate includes: Suzhou Fine Chemicals Group Co., Kaifeng Xinghua Fine Chemical Factory, Tianjin North Food,

Tianjin Changjie Chemical Co., Ltd., and Beta Udyog Ltd. 71 FR 7515 (February 13, 2006). Beta Udyog ***. As part of the first

annual administrative review (69 FR 52857, August 30, 2004), PMC requested that Commerce review entries from several

foreign exporters/producers, including Beta Udyog. Beta Udyog did not respond to Commerce’s request for information and

Commerce issued its determination including Beta Udyog under the order. PMC’s posthearing brief, exh. 9 and PMC’s

Responses to Plant Trip Questions, pp. 5-6. 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Results of Original Investigations and Expedited Five-Year Reviews

Table I-3 presents the margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigation and in its

expedited reviews on China.

Table I-3

Saccharin: Commerce’s original and five-year review antidumping duty margins for producers/exporters in

China

Producer/exporter

Original margins1

(percent ad valorem)

First five-year review margins2

(percent ad valorem)

China1

Suzhou Fine Chemical Group Co., Ltd. 291.57 291.57

Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. 249.39 249.39

Kaifeng Xinhua Fine Chemical Factory 281.97 281.97

China-wide 329.94 329.94

 1 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR

27530, May 30, 2003; Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People’s

Republic of China, 68 FR 35383, June 13, 2003; Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Saccharin from the People’s Repubic of

China, 68 FR 40906, July 9, 2003.

 2

 Saccharin from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty

Order, 73 FR 59604, October 9, 2008.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Commerce’s notice of final results of expedited review is presented in app. A.

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds 

to Affected Domestic Producers

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also know as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these
 10 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. §1675(c)).

 11 19 CFR 159.64(g).

I-7

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.10 During the period of review, PMC was the only

qualified U.S. producer of saccharin eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to the antidumping duty order on the subject product.11

Table I-4 presents CDSOA disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal years (October 1-September 30)

2004-08. 

Table I-4

Saccharin: Industry CDSOA disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2004-08

Fiscal year Amount disbursed (dollars) Amount claimed (dollars)

2004 3 20,843,187

2005 3,980 20,843,184

2006 39,030 20,839,204

2007 (1

) (1)

2008 95,5992 20,800,174

 Total 138,612 83,325,749

1

 Not applicable, no filings listed on Customs’ website. 2

 Data are for fiscal year 2008 as of January 15, 2009.

Source: Custom’s CDSOA Annual Reports for disbursement and claims data for 2004-08 at

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/, retrieved February 23, 2009.

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

According to Commerce’s scope, the imported product subject to the antidumping duty order

under review is defined by Commerce as follows:

“Saccharin is defined as a non-nutritive sweetener used in beverages and foods,

toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and animal feeds. It is also used in

metalworking fluids. There are four primary chemical compositions of

saccharin: (1) Sodium saccharin (American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract

Service (“CAS”) Registry 128-44-9); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS Registry 6485-

34-3); (3) acid (or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81-07-2); and (4)

research grade saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced and imported grades of

saccharin from China are sodium and calcium saccharin, which are available in

granular, powder, spray-dried powder, and liquid forms. The merchandise

subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheading 2925.11.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and includes all types

of saccharin imported under this HTSUS subheading, including research and

specialized grades. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this

order remains dispositive.”
 12 Saccharin’s use as a sweetener increased dramatically during World War I when most sugar was rationed and

sent to the troops. See “The History, Synthesis, Metabolism and Uses of Artificial Sweeteners,” Greg Hodgin,

obtained online at http://wcw.emory.edu/ECIT/chem_ram/synth/Hodgin.htm on August 13, 2002.

I-8

U.S. Tariff Treatment

Imports of this product are currently classifiable as saccharin and its salts under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) subheading 2925.11.00 as set forth in the following

tabulation:

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2 Column 23

Rates 

2925

 

 

 2925.11.00

 

Carboxyimide-function compounds

(including saccharin and its salts)

and imine-function compounds:

 Imides and their derivatives; salts

 thereof:

 Saccharin and its salts

 

6.5 % Free (A, AU, BH,

CA, CL, E, IL, J,

JO, MA, MX,

OM, P, PE, SG)

15.4¢/kg +

61%

1

 Normal trade relations, sometimes referred to as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 2

 Special rates apply to imports of saccharin and its salts from certain trading partners of the United States as follows: A

(GSP); AU (United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement; BH (United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation

Act); CA and MX (North American Free Trade Agreement); CL (United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement); E (Caribbean Basin

Economic Recovery Act); IL (United States-Israel Free Trade Area); J (Andean Trade Preference Act); JO (United States-Jordan

Free Trade Area Implementation Act); MA (United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act); OM (United

States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act) ;P (Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade

Agreement Implementation Act); PE (United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act); SG (United StatesSingapore Free Trade Agreement). China is not eligible for any special duty rates. 3

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

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009).

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Made from petroleum-based organic chemicals, saccharin is a chemical additive that is used

primarily as a sweetener. First synthesized in 1879, it has been used in the United States as a sugar

substitute since 1885,12 primarily in foods and beverages (either commercially added prior to consumption

or personally added at the time of consumption) and in personal care products such as toothpaste and

mouthwash. By weight, it is about 350 times sweeter than sugar. It is also used as an additive in

adhesives and in metalworking fluids to facilitate electroplating. End users for the foods and beverages

markets are mostly soft-drink manufacturers and manufacturers of table-top sweetener packets for

restaurants, airlines, and other firms serving beverages to the public. The auto and auto parts industries

consume saccharin in electroplating chrome bumpers and accessories. Saccharin is also used in

pharmaceuticals, animal feed, tobacco, and food mixes.
 13 A fourth variation of saccharin known as research grade saccharin was listed in the petition and is included in

the scope of this review. However, no sales of research grade saccharin were reported by PMC, U.S. importers, and

Chinese exporters during the period examined at the final investigation or at the current review. At the public

hearing of the final investigation, there was testimony that Sherwin-Williams Chemicals (prior to PMC’s purchase of

its saccharin production facilities) quarantined a regular-production batch of sodium saccharin, which was then

completely analytically tested to ensure that it was not an abnormal batch. This material was called research grade

saccharin and was used by the University of Nebraska and other institutions that studied the health impact of

saccharin. (See hearing transcript of the final investigation, pp. 56-57.)

 14 Aspartame is produced by a completely different chemical process and, other than being synthesized from

organic compounds, bears no chemical relationship to saccharin. It is about 200 times sweeter than sugar and, unlike

saccharin, has nutritive value with a caloric-count-to-weight ratio comparable to that of sugar. Aspartame’s major

advantage over saccharin in the marketplace, other than not having the stigma of a carcinogen that saccharin had

until recently with the warning label requirement, is that it is closer to natural sweeteners in taste; on the other hand,

it is 10 to 15 times more expensive than saccharin (on a sugar equivalency basis). Hearing transcript of the final

investigation, p. 24. Aspartame is used in two of saccharin’s major markets--packaged (non-fountain) soft drinks

and table-top sweeteners, but is not used in some saccharin end use applications such as electroplating, adhesives,

and chemical intermediaries. 

 15 Questions concerning the safety of aspartame, particularly the linkage between aspartame consumption by

children and certain brain disorders including tumor development and epilepsy, also continue despite repeated

examinations. In May 2002, a study published by the French Food Safety Agency (Agence Française de Sécurité

Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA)) concluded that 

“{n}one of the carcinogenicity tests that have been conducted on rodents indicated a relationship

between treatment with aspartame and the appearance of brain tumors. The epidemiological study

by Olney et al. (Olney JW, Farber NB, Spitznagel E, Robins LN. “Increasing brain tumour rates: 

is there is a link to aspartame?,” J. Neurpathol. Exp. Neurol., 1996, 55(11), pp. 1115-1123) which

suggested a link between the placing on the market of aspartame and a possible increase in the

frequency of brain cancers in humans did not provide any scientific evidence to justify or

demonstrate a basis for this suggestion; to date it has not been confirmed. Analysis of the

scientific literature has demonstrated a lack of evidence based on the current state of knowledge

which would enable a causal link to be established between the consumption of aspartame and the 

occurrence of epileptic seizures or anomalies on an electroencephalogram.” 

(continued...)

I-9

Three chemical variations of saccharin are generally available:13 (1) sodium saccharin, which

accounts for the bulk of U.S. consumption and which is available in granular, powder, spray-dried

powder, or liquid form, (2) calcium saccharin which is available in spray-dried form, and (3) acid (or

insoluble) saccharin which is primarily available in spray-dried form. Like that produced in the United

States, most of the material imported from China is sodium saccharin. The U.S. and Chinese producers,

or at least those that export to the United States, appear to produce reasonably comparable products. 

Before purchasing, most users either require a certificate of analysis or conduct their own tests for purity

and for adherence to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specifications outlined in the Food Chemical

Codex (FCC) and the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Saccharin that meets these standards is known

in the market as “food grade” and is required for virtually all uses other than adhesive production and

electroplating. Both the U.S.- and Chinese-produced products are marketed as “food grade.” 

Pursuant to a study that found saccharin to be a cancer-causing agent in rats, the FDA banned the

use of saccharin in food and beverages in 1977. Shortly thereafter, Congress imposed a moratorium on

the ban, but subjected the sale of saccharin to certain requirements. The Saccharin Study and Labeling

Act, renewed through May 1997, mandated that health warning labels be placed prominently on all

products containing saccharin. According to the petitioner, saccharin’s association with cancer and the

warnings pertaining thereto had a negative impact in some market sectors in the late 1980s, particularly

the packaged (non-fountain) soft drink market, and was a factor in helping the only other major artificial

sweetener, aspartame,14 15 to displace sales. However, after further study, including tests involving mice
 15 (...continued)

Assessment Report, AFSSA, May 7, 2002, p. 12.

 16 Hearing transcript of the final investigation, p. 20. The SWEETEST Act is an acronym for the Saccharin

Warning Elimination via Environmental Testing Employing Science and Technology Act. See “Congress Gives

Saccharin a Clean Bill of Health” press release of the Calorie Control Counsel obtained on line at

http://www.caloriecontrol.org/pr12-22-00.html dated December 22, 2000.

 17 Hearing transcript of the final investigation, pp. 35-38.

 18 Ibid., pp. 36 and 40.

 19 Ibid., p. 51.

 20 Ortho-toluene sulfonamide is the starting material for the Remsen-Fahlberg process. Hearing transcript, p. 21;

petition, p. 4. The discussion of the Maumee process which follows will contain a flow chart of the RemsenFahlberg process.

 21 Commission PMC Plant Trip, February 3, 2009. During the initial discussion, the company representatives

discussed the chemical reactions (using a chemical flow chart, figure I-1) used to make saccharin by the 

Remsen-Fahlberg process, the Maumee process (and early modifications), and the latest Maumee modification. 

However, the plant tour followed the Maumee modification and its purification. 

 22 The actual chemical reactions for the Maumee process are as follows: ***.

I-10

and monkeys, evidence strongly supported the conclusion that saccharin does not cause cancer in humans

and the FDA delisted saccharin and on December 21, 2000, President Clinton signed the SWEETEST

Act, which removed the warning label on all products using saccharin.16 

The large packaged-soft-drink manufacturers, such as Coca Cola and Pepsi, switched from

saccharin to aspartame in their products that were bottled for retail sale in 1983, 6 years after the

Saccharin Study and Labeling Act of 1977 requiring a warning label on products containing saccharin

took effect. However, because of the limited shelf life of aspartame, the large packaged-soft-drink

manufacturers continued to use saccharin in their products for use in beverage dispensing equipment. 

With the lifting of the warning label and the growing use of blends, petitioner states that food formulators

have used saccharin with other sweeteners to create cost-effective taste profiles in products prepared for

retail sale.17 Adding saccharin to blends reduces the total cost of the sweetener product since most

sweeteners are more expensive than saccharin.18 The amount of saccharin used in the blends varies from

product to product depending on the desired food taste requirements. PMC stated that roughly 20 percent

of its total sales of saccharin are used in products that contain blends.19

Manufacturing Processes

Two production processes are currently in use worldwide: the Maumee process, a continuousproduction method which was developed in the United States and is the only process used domestically,

and the older Remsen-Fahlberg process, a batch-production method using different starting materials,20

that is the predominant method used worldwide. Both processes are used in China. The Maumee process

will be discussed presently.

Beginning in 2007, PMC underwent a major renovation in their process for making saccharin. 

For that reason, the original Maumee process and its modifications will be discussed in some detail. 

During the Commission plant trip, the company representatives referred to the overall process of making

saccharin as consisting of a “front end” and a “back end.” The front end refers to the chemical reactions

that make the crude saccharin (irrespective of the process), and the back end refers to the process of

purifying and crystallizing the crude product (irrespective of the process)21. 

The following discussion will refer primarily to the front end of the process used by PMC.

“***.” 22

The company stated that important advantages of the process (relative to the Remsen-Fahlberg

process) included:
 23 ***. (Commission staff telephone conversation with Customs National Import Specialist Richard Dunkel,

April 14, 2009.) 

 24 PMC Responses to Plant trip Questions, attachment 1, p. 2.

 25 PMC Responses to Plant trip Questions, question 2, p. 2.

 26 Jim McKenna, PMC, Description of Saccharin Retooling, December 17, 2008. 

 27 PMC Responses to Plant Trip Questions, question 7, p. 5.

I-11

 1. ***.

 2. ***.

 3. ***.

Reengineered Maumee Process

“***.”23 “***.”24 “***.”25

PMC noted that as with saccharin, MA was produced at the Cincinnati location. ***, which are

the chemicals used in the reactions found in figures I-1 and I-2.26

Figure I-1

Saccharin chemistry

* * * * * * *

Figure I-2

Saccharin purification

* * * * * * *

To put the manufacturing of MA and saccharin in perspective, the company noted “***.”

“***.”27 Chemical reactions that comprise the reengineered saccharin process from *** are

presented in figure I-3. 

Figure I-3

Synthesis of saccharin from ***

* * * * * * *

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

The majority of U.S. producer and importer questionnaire respondents reported that the U.S.-

produced product is always or frequently interchangeable with ***. With respect to customer and

producer perceptions, questionnaire respondents reported *** with regard to price. The U.S. product was

rated inferior to imports from China in terms of ***. More detailed information on interchangeability and

customer and producer perceptions can be found in Part II of this report, Conditions of Competition in the

U.S. Market.
 28 Saccharin From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1013 (Final), Pub. 3606, June 2003, p. 5. The Commission found

that the scope of the investigation pertained solely to saccharin. No party argued that the Commission should find

that the domestic like product includes alternative sweeteners, such as aspartame. While the Commission may

define the like product to be broader than the scope if the facts so warrant, see, e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy and

Turkey, Inv. Nos.701-TA-365 and 366 and 731-TA-734 and 735 (Final), USITC Pub. 2977 at 8-12 (July 1996), the

Commission found that the record did not indicate that a broader like product was appropriate here.

 29 Ibid. In its final phase prehearing brief, the Pro Trade Group’s U.S. Sweetener Users Coalition stated that the

Commission should consider whether sodium saccharin and calcium saccharin are separate domestic like products,

and stated further that it would discuss this matter further at the hearing. Coalition’s Prehearing Brief at 1. At the

hearing, however, the Coalition explained that it was not seeking a finding of two domestic like products, but wished

to point out the differences in the forms of saccharin in the context of conditions of competition. Hearing transcript,

p. 181 (Aitken).

 30 PMC’s Response to Notice of Institution, p. 11.

I-12

Channels of Distribution

During the period examined in this review, shipments of saccharin by the U.S. producer went

entirely to ***. For imports of saccharin from China, the majority of shipments went to *** while

imports of saccharin from nonsubject countries went primarily to ***. More detailed information on

channels of distribution can be found in Part II of this report, Conditions of Competition in the U.S.

Market.

Price

Information with regard to prices of saccharin is presented in Part V of this report, Pricing and

Related Information. 

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In the preliminary phase of the original investigation, the Commission found that there was one

domestic like product consisting of all forms of saccharin. The Commission made this finding based on

the similarity in physical characteristics and uses, general interchangeability, common channels of

distribution, common manufacturing facilities and production process, and general similarity in price. In

the final phase of the investigation, no party argued that the Commission should revisit its like product

finding, nor did any facts arise that would otherwise indicate that the Commission should so do.28 29 In

response to a question soliciting comments regarding the appropriate domestic like product in the

Commission’s notice of institution of these reviews, the domestic interested party stated that it agreed

with the Commission’s established definition of the domestic like product and agreed with the definitions

of domestic like product and domestic industry stated in the Commission’s Notice of Institution.30 

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

The Commission received U.S. producer questionnaire responses from one producer that

manufactured saccharin during 2003-July 2006 and in 2008, as presented in table I-5. 
 31 In addition, an importers’ questionnaires was sent to the domestic producer PMC ***.

I-13

Table I-5

Saccharin: U.S. producer, production location, share of reported 2008 production, position on

continuation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, and parent company, 2008

Producer

Production

location(s)

Share of reported 

production

(percent)

Position on

continuation Parent company

PMC Cincinnati, OH 100 Support ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Information for the domestic producer during the original investigations is the same as presented

in table I-5.

U.S. Importers

Importers’ questionnaires were sent to 35 firms identified in proprietary Customs data as

importing saccharin;31 eighteen firms responded to the Commission’s questionnaires (table I-6). 

Table I-6

Saccharin: U.S. importers, their locations, import sources, and their reported U.S. imports (1,000

pounds) in 2008

* * * * * * *

The largest importers of subject product, ***, accounted for an aggregate *** percent of reported

subject import quantity in 2008. Individually, the companies’ 2008 subject import quantity percentages

are as follows: ***.

U.S. Purchasers

Purchasers’ questionnaires were sent to 24 firms identified as purchasers of saccharin, fifteen

firms responded to the Commission’s questionnaires. Respondent purchaser names, locations, sources of

purchases, type of firm, and end products produced are presented in table I-7. 

Table I-7

Saccharin: Purchaser names, location, source of purchases, type of firm, and end products

produced

* * * * * * *

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-8 presents apparent U.S. consumption for both the original investigation and the review

period and table I-9 presents U.S. market shares for the same period. 
I-14

Table I-8

Saccharin: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption,

2000-02 and 2003-08

* * * * * * *

Table I-9

Saccharin: U.S. market shares, 2000-02 and 2003-08

* * * * * * *
 1

 Original investigation, conference transcript, p. 41 (McCullough).

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET SEGMENTS/CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

The saccharin marketed in the United States by PMC and by importers is used in various

consumer products as well as industrial and agricultural applications. Generally, there is little seasonality

in the demand for saccharin in most uses. One exception is diet soft drinks. As sales of soft drinks

increase during summer months the demand for the saccharin used in these beverages also increases.1

 

*** sales of saccharin in the United States by PMC went to *** during 2003-08; sales by

importers of Chinese-produced saccharin were divided between end users and distributors during this

period, with the majority going to end users in all years except 2004 as shown in table II-1. 

Table II-1

saccharin: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of reported U.S. shipments, by source and

channel of distribution, 2003-08

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of saccharin to: 

Distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

End users *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of saccharin from China to:

Distributors 35.0 100.0 (1)

0.0 36.5 17.8

End users 65.0 0.0 (1)

100.0 63.5 82.2

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of saccharin from all other countries to:

Distributors 1.9 2.9 11.5 10.1 20.7 9.4

End users 98.1 97.1 88.5 89.9 79.3 90.6

 1

 No shipments reported.

Source: Complied from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Lead times for delivery of saccharin vary widely. PMC reported that delivery requires only ***

day when the product is sold from inventory, but requires *** days when it is produced to order. ***

percent of PMC’s sales are from inventory and *** percent are produced to order. Importers of product

from China reported that lead times typically range from 1 to 7 days if saccharin is in stock in the United

States. However, if it has to be ordered, 2 to 4 months may be required. Among eight responding

importers of saccharin from China, four reported that all or a majority of their sales are from inventory

and four reported that all or a majority of their sales are produced to order. 
II-2

PMC sells saccharin ***, while market areas for Chinese imports vary. Five of nine responding

importers of Chinese product said that they sell saccharin throughout the United States. The other four

firms reported selling in the Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest, and West Coast.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

The sensitivity of the domestic supply to changes in price depends on several factors including

the level of excess capacity, the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced saccharin, inventory

levels, and PMC’s ability to shift to the manufacture of other products. PMC produced ***. 

PMC had *** excess capacity during 2003-06 and had a *** ratio of exports to total shipments

during this period. PMC’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent

in 2005 and *** percent in 2006. During 2003-06, the ratio of exports to total shipments ranged from a

low of *** in 2004 to a high of *** percent in both 2003 and 2005. During 2003-06, the ratio of

inventories to U.S. shipments ranged from a low of *** percent in 2004 to a high of *** percent in 2006. 

PMC reported that *** .

PMC was asked how easily it could shift its sales between the U.S. market and alternative country

markets. PMC reported that ***. 

Subject Imports

Just one foreign producer, Tianjin Changjie, submitted a questionnaire. Prior to 2003, Tianjin

Changjie exported saccharin to the United States ***.

During the 2003-08 period, Tianjin Changjie reported capacity utilization rates for saccharin

ranging from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. Tianjin’s end-of-period

inventories to total shipments ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. 

Home market shipments have consistently accounted for a *** share of Tianjin’s total shipments. These

home market shipments ranged from a low of *** percent of total shipments in *** to a high of ***

percent in ***. During 2008, they accounted for *** percent of total shipments. Exports shipments

ranged from a low of *** percent of total shipments in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During ***,

*** percent of the quantity of Tianjin Changjie’s shipments went to ***, *** percent went to ***, and

*** percent went to other markets. No shipments went to the ***. The *** inventory level and *** of

excess capacity indicate that Tianjin Changjie would be able to shift shipments of saccharin to the United

States. 

U.S. Demand

Since saccharin is an intermediate product used in various consumer products and agricultural

and industrial applications, the overall U.S. demand for saccharin depends upon the demand for the

products that use it as an input. Saccharin is an input in many products including soft drinks, table top

sweeteners, certain foods, toothpaste, mouthwash, pharmaceuticals, animal feed, herbicides, and metalworking fluids. The overall demand for saccharin, as measured by U.S. apparent consumption, increased

irregularly from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2008. 

When asked whether the U.S. demand for saccharin had increased, decreased, or remained the

same since 2003, the majority of questionnaire respondents reported that demand had decreased or
 2

 At the hearing, the petitioners stated that the market for saccharin is mature and that demand tends to be stable.

Hearing transcript p. 23 (Kerwin), and pp. 37,62 (Bouligaraki). 

 3

 According to ***, an importer and purchaser, stevia was approved by the USDA in 2008.

 4

 The higher costs of alternative sweeteners and differences in tastes were also discussed by the petitioners at the

hearing. Hearing transcripts pp. 62-63 (Bouligaraki).

 5

 ***. 

II-3

remained the same. None reported that demand had increased. ***.2

 Among 9 responding importers, 6

reported that demand was unchanged, and 3 reported that it had decreased. Among 10 responding

purchasers, 4 reported that demand had decreased, 2 reported that demand was unchanged, and 4 reported

“other.” Among importers and purchasers reporting a decrease in demand, reasons cited included the

effects of the antidumping duties, the substitution of other sweeteners for saccharin, and cost increases for

saccharin. Among purchasers reporting “other,” one firm stated that demand had fluctuated and another

stated that demand had first increased and then decreased. 

Substitute Products

When asked whether substitutes for saccharin exist, PMC and a majority of importers and

purchasers listed one or more substitutes. The most frequently mentioned were acesulfame K, sucralose,

aspartame, and a more recently developed sweetener, stevia.3

 Comments by questionnaire respondents

indicate that these other products are not easily substitutable for saccharin in most applications. Reasons

cited included the higher costs of these sweeteners and differences in taste.4

 When asked whether the

changes in the price of the alternative sweeteners affect the price of saccharin, most respondents answered

no. One purchaser reported that changes in their prices influence the price of saccharin to a minor degree. 

 

Cost Share

When asked to estimate the cost of saccharin as a share of the final cost of end-use products, the

estimated percentages by questionnaire respondents varied widely from product to product. PMC

estimated that saccharin accounts for about *** percent of the cost of pharmaceuticals, personal care

products, and sweeteners. Estimates provided by end-use purchasers for dental products, mouthwash,

cough medicines were consistently lower than 10 percent, and, in some cases, less than 1 percent. 

However, one firm estimated that saccharin accounts for *** percent of the cost of its toothpaste. 

Another firm estimates that saccharin accounts for *** percent of the cost of its electroplating process,

another purchaser estimated that it accounts for about *** percent of the raw material cost of biocides,

and another purchaser estimated that it accounts for *** percent of the cost of its table top sweetener.5

 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The extent of substitutability between domestic products and subject imports, between domestic

products and nonsubject imports, and between subject and nonsubject imports is examined in this section. 

Much of the discussion is based on information obtained from questionnaire responses. 

A total of 14 purchasers submitted completed questionnaires. They included eight distributors

and six end users. The end users reported that they used saccharin in toothpaste, table top sweeteners,

oral care products, pharmaceutical products, and other applications. Among the purchasers, eight

reported purchasing U.S.-produced saccharin during the period, eight reported purchasing saccharin from

China, and ten reported purchases from nonsubject sources including Israel, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.
 6

 One purchaser, ***, the manufacturer of *** reported that it discontinued purchases from China after the order

went into effect, but began purchasing Chinese-produced saccharin again in 2008. 

II-4

The combined quantity of purchases by the responding 13 firms from the United States, China and

nonsubject sources are shown in table II-2.

Table II-2

Saccharin: Quantity of purchases (in thousands of pounds) reported by U.S. purchasers, 2003-08

Purchase source

Year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

United States 724.9 567.8 1,051.8 470.2 496.4 144.0

China 40.9 5.1 21.9 10.9 5.8 1,112.9

Nonsubject countries 2,176.3 3,105.8 3,170.3 2,884.7 3,184.1 3,022.7

Total 2,942.1 3,678.7 4,244 3,365.8 3,686.32 4,279.6

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In order to evaluate the effects of the antidumping duty order on imports from China, purchasers

were asked whether they had bought saccharin produced in China before 2003 and if so, whether their

purchasing pattern had changed since that time. Of the 13 purchasers that responded, 9 answered that

they had not purchased the Chinese product prior to 2003 and 4 answered that they had purchased

Chinese-produced saccharin prior to 2003. Of the four firms that had purchased the Chinese product prior

to 2003, two reported that they had discontinued purchases of the Chinese products because of the order

and two reported that they had reduced purchases of the Chinese product.6

 

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

When asked to rank the three most important factors involved in purchasing decisions, the 11

purchasers that responded consistently reported availability, price, and quality as the most important

factors (table II-3). Other factors mentioned included traditional supplier and supply assurance. 

Table II-3

Saccharin: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Availability 3 5 2

Price 3 1 7

Quality 3 4 2

Other1 2 1 0

 1 Other factors include supply assurance and traditional supplier. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-5

In order to obtain more information on purchasing decisions, firms were asked whether

purchasing decisions are based mainly on price. Purchasers were instructed to answer “always,”

“usually,” “sometimes,” or “never.” Five purchasers answered “usually,” six answered “sometimes,” and

three answered “never.” No firm answered “always.”

Purchasers were also asked to report whether the factors shown in table II-4 are “very

important,”“somewhat important,” or “not important” in their purchasing decisions. The factors firms

cited most often as “very important” were availability (13 firms), price (10) firms, product consistency

(13 firms), quality meeting industry standards (13 firms), and reliability of supply (14 firms). 

Table II-4

Saccharin: Importance of purchasing factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 13 1 0

Delivery terms 3 9 2

Delivery time 5 8 0

Discounts offered 1 10 3

Extension of credit 2 7 5

Minimum quantity requirements 5 3 6

Packaging 3 7 4

Price 10 3 0

Product consistency 13 1 0

Product range 3 5 6

Quality meets industry standard 13 1 0

Quality exceeds industry standard 8 5 0

Reliability of supply 14 0 0

Technical support/service 5 5 4

U.S. transportation 0 11 3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports and Nonsubject Imports

To determine whether U.S.-produced saccharin generally can be used in the same

applications as imports from China and nonsubject sources, producers, importers, and purchasers were 

asked whether the product can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. 

As shown in table II-5, the majority of questionnaire respondents reported that the U.S.-produced product

and imports from China are always or frequently interchangeable. Similarly, the majority of

questionnaire respondents consider U.S.-produced saccharin and imports from China as always or 

frequently interchangeable with nonsubject imports. One importer reported that the quality of the

Chinese product is suspect in certain applications. One purchaser also reported that the inferior quality of

the Chinese product precludes interchangeable use. However, another purchaser reported that the 

domestic producer and one Chinese manufacturer produce a very high quality material that is preferred in

metalworking and pharmaceutical applications. One purchaser reported that there is no interchangeability

of saccharin made in the United States because, since 2006, there has been no
II-6

Table II-5

Saccharin: Interchangeability of product from the United States and subject and nonsubject

sources1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers Purchasers

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 5 2 2 0 6 2 1 1

U.S. vs. nonsubject *** *** *** *** 2 3 1 0 5 2 1 1

China vs. nonsubject *** *** *** *** 2 3 1 1 4 2 1 1

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if saccharin produced in the United States and in other countries is used

interchangeably.

Note: “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

meaningful production of saccharin in the United States since that year. This purchaser also stated that

the largest Chinese producer, Shanghai Fortune, makes saccharin that meets its specifications. It stated

that there are other smaller Chinese producers that are now subject to very high antidumping duties that

may have more trouble in meeting its specifications. 

In addition to questions concerning interchangeability, producers and importers were also asked

to compare U.S.-produced products with imports from China and nonsubject imports in terms of product

differences other than price such as quality, availability, product range, and other characteristics, as a

factor in their sales of saccharin (table II-6). PMC reported that product differences are *** when

comparing the U.S.-produced product with imports from China, while the majority of importers reported

that the differences are frequently or sometimes important. One importer reported that the quality of the

Korean product is superior to the quality of Chinese saccharin. Another importer reported that Shanghai

Fortune and PMC produce the purest and highest quality material. 

Table II-6

Saccharin: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in

sales of products produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 0 1 4 3

U.S. vs. nonsubject *** *** *** *** 0221

China vs. nonsubject *** *** *** *** 1311

 1

 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if differences other than price between saccharin produced

in the United States and in other countries are a significant factor in their firms’ sales of saccharin. 

Note: “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers also were asked to compare U.S.-produced saccharin and imported saccharin from

China and nonsubject imports in 15 selected characteristics listed in table II-7, noting whether the

domestic product was superior, comparable, or inferior to the imports. Four purchasers provided

comparisons for the selected categories with respect to China. For this limited response, the U.S. product

was rated inferior to imports from China in terms of price (i.e., higher price). For all other categories,

there was no clear-cut advantage for either the United States or China. In the comparisons between the

U.S. product and nonsubject imports, the United States product was rated inferior with regard to price. 

For all other categories, a majority of purchasers rated the products comparable. 
 7

 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-7

Chinese imports were also compared with nonsubject imports as shown in the table. The results

show that imports from China were ranked inferior to nonsubject imports in price, but in all other

characteristics, there was no clear advantage for either China or nonsubject imports. 

Table II-7

Saccharin: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject products from China, and subject

and nonsubject products as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs. China

U.S. vs.

nonsubject 

China vs.

nonsubject

S C I S C I SC I

Number of responses 

Availability 0 3 1 0 7 2 1 5 0

Delivery terms 1 2 1 0 7 2 1 5 0

Delivery time 2 1 1 2 5 2150

Discounts offered 0 1 2 0 5 4 1 5 0

Extension of credit 1 2 1 0 7 2 1 3 3

Lower price1 0 0 4 1 2 7205

Lower U.S. transportation costs1 1 2 1 1 6 2050

Minimum quantity requirements 1 2 1 1 6 2 0 5 0

Packaging 0 3 1 0 7 2150

Product consistency 0 3 1 0 7 3 2 3 2

Product range 0 2 2 0 7 2 2 4 0

Quality meets industry standards 0 3 1 0 7 3241

Quality exceeds industry standards 0 3 107 3232

Reliability of supply 0 3 1 0 7 3232

Technical support/service 1 2 1 0 7 3232

 1A rating of superior on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that the first country generally has lower prices/U.S.

transportation costs than the second country.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on these

estimates in their briefs. However, no party submitted any comments.

U.S. Supply Elasticity7

The domestic supply elasticity for saccharin measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

the U.S. producer to changes in the U.S. market price of saccharin. This elasticity depends upon several

factors including the level of excess capacity, the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced

saccharin, inventory levels, and the producer’s ability to shift to the manufacture of other products. The

earlier analysis of these factors indicates that the U.S. industry probably had considerable flexibility in
 8

 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like product to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject imports (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-8

adjusting supply in response to price change during the 2003-06 period. During that period, the supply

elasticity would probably have been in the 5 to 10 range. However, in view of *** an elasticity is

difficult to estimate. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for saccharin measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of saccharin. This estimate depends on factors discussed

earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the

component share of the saccharin in the production of any downstream products. Since substitutes for

saccharin are available in some applications, the aggregate demand for saccharin is likely to be

moderately elastic; a range of -1.0 to -1.5 is suggested. 

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported saccharin from China.8

 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors

as quality and conditions of sale (availability, delivery, etc.). Based on available information indicating

that the domestic and imported products from China can generally be used interchangeably, the elasticity

of substitution between U.S.-produced saccharin and imported saccharin is likely to be in the range of 

3 to 5.
 1 Saccharin from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1013 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 3606, June 2003, p. III-1.

 2

 PMC’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, sections I-5 and I-6.

 3

 ***.

 4

 Ibid.

 5

 PMC’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section II-5.

 6

 PMC’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section II-6.

 7

 PMC’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section II-7.

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

Information on the U.S. industry is based on the questionnaire response of the only known U.S.

producer of saccharin. Hence, the industry data obtained account for all known U.S. production of

saccharin during 2003-08.

U.S. PRODUCER’S CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

During the original investigations, there was also only one U.S. producer of saccharin who

responded to the Commission’s questionnaire and that accounted for all U.S. production in 2002.

The current review includes U.S. production of saccharin by PMC, the only producer of saccharin

in the United States. PMC is wholly owned by PMC, Inc., Sun Valley, CA, which purchased the

saccharin-producing operations of Sherwin-Williams Co. in 1985. Sherwin-Williams began producing

saccharin in 1966 when it purchased the Cincinnati, OH, saccharin plant of Maumee Chemical Co.1

Numerous other firms, including Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO; Lakeway Chemical Co., Muskegon, MI;

and Pillsbury Co., Minneapolis, MN, previously produced saccharin in the United States. All of these

other firms ceased production of the subject product by 1972. 

PMC imported *** of saccharin from China during ***. PMC is ***.2

Data on PMC’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented in table III-1. 

Although PMC reported ***.3

 

Table III-1

Saccharin: U.S. producer’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2000-02 and 2003-08

* * * * * * *

PMC further reported ***.4

 Saccharin production ***. Details of the changes in the character of PMC’s

operations and capacity projections are presented later in this section.

The Commission asked PMC whether the production equipment and the production and related

workers (PRWs) employed in the production of saccharin were used to produce other products. ***.5

 In

response to a question concerning constraints that set the limits on production capabilities, PMC ***.6

The Commission also asked if PMC was able to switch production between saccharin and other products

in response to a change in the relative price of saccharin vis-a-vis the price of other products using the

same equipment and labor. ***.7
 8

 PMC’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section II-2. Post hearing, PMC was requested to provide any

notification documentation provided to its customers prior to July 2006 concerning possible disruption of supply due

to the plant shutdown for reengineering. ***. PMC’s posthearing brief, exh. 3, p. 11.

 9

 Ibid.

 10 PMC’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section II-2, attachment B.

 11 Ibid.

 12 Ibid.

 13 Transcript, pp. 54-55. 

 14 Transcript, pp. 55-56.

 15 PMC’s posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 9, and exhs. 6, 13, 14, and 15.

 16 Ibid., exh. 1, p. 42.

 17 Ibid., exh. 1, pp. 42-43.

 18 Request for Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order Issued in Saccharin

from The People’s Rebublic of China, exhibit A, “Saccharin Maker Cuts 130 Jobs,” The Enquirer, May 11, 2006,

Cincinnati.com. 

 19 Ibid., exhibit C.

 20 ***.

 21 Correspondence to Commission staff from ***.

III-2

Changes in Character of Operations and Capacity Projections

PMC reported operational changes in existing facilities during the period of review. ***.8

***.9

***.10

***.11

***.12

The Commission requested PMC’s comments on a PMC Science-Tech Industries (Nanjing) Co.,

Ltd. 2007 web release in which it was indicated that a joint venture between PMC Global and a Chinese

firm was “brewing” for production of 15,000 metric tons per year of saccharin, or about two-thirds of

worldwide saccharin consumption.13 PMC responded that it had made no investment at any joint venture

in China with any saccharin producer.14 PMC further stated that it had never been involved in any joint

venture to produce saccharin in China, and as a matter of Chinese law, the Chinese saccharin industry is

identified as an industry in which foreign investment has been “restricted” since 2002, at least through the

end of 2007.15

PMC entered into a business relationship ***.16 PMC reported that the decision to ***.17

Public and business proprietary information sources were also searched to obtain information

concerning events that took place at PMC during the period of review. Sources include newspaper

articles, consultancy reports, questionnaire responses, and written submissions to the Commission. A

May 2006 newspaper article reported that PMC announced plans to eliminate most of its 138 employees,

notifying state officials it will permanently terminate 103 employees - 23 salaried and 80 hourly workers -

starting around July 3, 2006.18 In its petition to The Department of Labor for Trade Adjustment

Assistance (“TAA”) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (“ATAA”) for its “approximately 115”

workers that had been or will be laid off, PMC provided the reason for worker eligibility for TAA and

ATAA certification as, “unable to compete on standardized products that are mass produced. As a result

of this inability to compete, our major products were outsourced to foreign producers”.19

***.20

***.21
 22 PMC responses to staff questions, April 21, 2009, p. 2.

 23 PMC bill of lading, March 2008.

 24 PMC’s posthearing brief, exh.1, question 8, p. 14.

 25 Ibid. ***. PMC responses to staff questions, April 21, 2009, p. 1. 

 26 Ibid., p. 15.

 27 Ibid.

III-3

U.S. PRODUCER’S DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS,

AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

Table III-2 presents U.S. producers’ shipment data for saccharin. PMC’s total shipments and 

commercial U.S. shipments ***. PMC reported ***. Export shipments ***. The unit values of U.S.

commercial shipments ***.22

Table III-2

Saccharin: U.S. producer’s shipments, by type, 2000-02 and 2003-08 

* * * * * * *

PMC’s U.S. shipments of saccharin by type of saccharin are shown in table III-3. ***. The

quantity of U.S. shipments of *** during 2003-08, ***. PMC’s U.S. shipments of acid saccharin ***.

***. ***. The unit values for calcium saccharin ***. The unit value of U.S. shipments of acid saccharin

***.

Table III-3

Saccharin: U.S. producer’s U.S. commercial shipments, by type of saccharin, 2000-2002 and 

2003-08

* * * * * * *

PMC received its ***.23 The Commission requested that PMC provide monthly production,

shipment, and inventory data for its reengineered saccharin process for the period March 2008-March

2009 (table III-4). Saccharin production was reported ***.

***. 

As noted, PMC received its first *** and began production using the re-engineered process ***.24

***.25 ***

Table III-4

Saccharin: U.S. producer’s U.S. production, commercial shipments and inventories, by month,

March 2008-March 2009

* * * * * * *

***.26 ***.27
 28 Transcript, p. 44 (Miller). ***. PMC responses to staff questions, April 21, 2009, p. 1.

 29 Transcript, p. 74 (Bouligaraki).

 30 Transcript, p. 79 (Bouligaraki).

 31 U.S. producers’ questionnaire, section I-8 and section II-3.

 32 PMC producers’ questionnaire response, section II-6.

 33 PMC’s producers’ and importer’s questionnaire responses, sections II-13 and II-6, respectively.

III-4

PMC further described its reengineered production process as follows: “the volumes of output

are modest, but we are in an R&D piloting type of operation because the raw material inputs are very

expensive and the unfortunate loss of some of the materials due to yield issues is very troubling.”28 

When asked about future importation projections, PMC responded that it will try to cover

customer needs through domestic production; however, should the need arise to have imported saccharin

it might be done.29 When asked whether there are other saccharin producers around the world who use

*** as a starting point in their production process, PMC responded that to the best of its knowlege no

other producers of saccharin in the world are using this raw material right now.30

The Commission also requested that PMC provide a copy of its business plan or any internal

documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for saccharin. The

Commission further requested a specific projection of PMC’s capacity to produce saccharin for 2009 and

2010.31 PMC’s response in its entirety is presented in table III-5.

Table III-5

Saccharin: PMC business projections 2009-13

* * * * * * *

PMC projects 2009 production volume at *** pounds, and projects *** percent in 2010 and ***

percent annually during 2011-13. Shipment volumes are projected at *** pounds for 2009 with ***

percent in 2010, *** percent in 2011, and about *** percent during 2012-13. The number of production

and related workers is projected to *** during the period 2009-13.

U.S. PRODUCER’S INVENTORIES

Inventories *** during 2003-06 before *** (table III-6).

Table III-6

Saccharin: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2000-02 and 2003-08

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCER’S IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Table III-7 presents PMC’s imports of saccharin from both subject and nonsubject countries.32

PMC reported ***.33 In the final phase of the original investigation, PMC reported that it ***

Table III-7

Saccharin: U.S. producer’s production, imports of saccharin, and ratios of imports to production,

2000-02 and 2003-08

* * * * * * *
 34 PMC’s final phase producers’ questionnaire response, section II-4.

 35 PMC’s final phase producers’ questionnaire response, sections II-5 and II-6.

 36 PMC’s importers’ questionnaire response, sections II-7a and II-7b.

 37 ***. 

 38 PMC’s importers’ questionnaire response, sections II-9a and II-9b.

 39 PMC’s purchasers’ questionnaire response, section II-13. 

III-5

***.34 In the final phase of the original investigations, PMC ***.35

In the current five-year review, PMC reported ***.36 ***.37 ***.38

The Commission requested that PMC provide monthly import data for imports from China and

from all other sources for the period calendar year 2008 and first quarter 2009. PMC’s response is

presented in table III-8.

Table III-8

Saccharin: PMC’s monthly imports of saccharin, by source, January 2008-March 2009

* * * * * * *

PMC ***39 during the period of review (table III-9).

Table III-9

Saccharin: U.S. producer’s purchases of imported product, 2003-08

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

*** (table III-10). PMC ***.

Table III-10

Saccharin: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages paid to such

workers, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2000-02 and 2003-08 

* * * * * * *

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCER

Introduction

The three forms of saccharin produced and sold by PMC (sodium saccharin, calcium saccharin,

and acid saccharin), combined, are reflected in the profit-and-loss information presented in this section of

the report. The relative importance of each type of saccharin sold by PMC remained fairly constant

during the period examined. Sodium saccharin represented *** percent of PMC’s saccharin sales (by

quantity) during the first four years of the period examined, then increased to *** percent of PMC’s

saccharin sales during 2007 and 2008. From 2003 through 2006, the shares of calcium saccharin and acid

saccharin represented *** percent and *** percent, respectively, of PMC’s saccharin sales. In 2007 and
 40 Commission staff verified the U.S. producers’ questionnaire response of PMC, and the results of the

verification are incorporated in this report. 

 41 ***.

 42 E-mail correspondence from ***, February 27, 2009, and confirmed during verification.

 43 ***. E-mail correspondence from ***, February 27, 2009, and confirmed during verification. 

 44 Due to the *** in 2008 as compared to the prior review periods, a variance analysis is not shown in this report.

 45 E-mail correspondence from ***, February 27, 2009, and confirmed during verification. 

III-6

2008, both of these forms of saccharin represented *** of PMC’s reported saccharin sales. PMC’s

financial data were reported on the basis of a calendar year. PMC reported ***.40

Operations on Saccharin

Income-and-loss data for PMC on its operations on saccharin are presented in table III-11. The

domestic producer reported *** during the first four periods of review, followed by an *** in 2007 and a

*** in 2008. Net sales (quantity and value), the cost of goods sold (“COGS”), and selling, general, and

administrative (“SG&A”) expenses all *** during the period of review. In particular, 2008 net sales

(quantity and value) were ***. Per-pound revenues *** from 2003 to 2007, then *** in 2008.41 Perpound operating costs and expenses (COGS and SG&A expenses combined) followed a similar pattern of

*** from 2003 to 2007, followed by a *** in 2008.

Table III-11

Saccharin: Results of operations of U.S. producer PMC, 2003-08

* * * * * * *

From 2007 to 2008, per-pound raw material costs ***, which resulted from ***. *** in per-pound direct

labor ($***), other factory costs ($***), and SG&A expenses ($***) during this time were also ***.42

Despite the *** in sales quantities, profitability *** from 2003 to 2007 before *** in 2008. The

*** operating margin reported in 2003 *** to a *** in 2007, then *** from the 2007 value.43 44

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

PMC’s data on capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”) expenses are shown

in table III-12. Capital expenditures were ***, and ranged from $***. In contrast, R&D expenses were

*** and generally *** during the review period. According to PMC, its capital expenditures primarily

reflect ***. R&D expenses primarily reflect ***.45

Table III-12

Saccharin: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producer PMC,

2003-08

* * * * * * *

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of saccharin to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Although ROI can be computed in many
III-7

different ways, a commonly used method is income divided by total assets. Therefore, ROI is calculated

as operating income divided by total assets used in the production, warehousing, and sale of saccharin.

Data on PMC’s assets and its ROI are presented in table III-13. The total assets utilized in the

production, warehousing, and sale of saccharin *** irregularly from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2008. The

ROI *** from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2007, then *** percentage points in 2008 to ***

percent. The trend of the ROI was similar to the trend of the operating income margin during the

reporting period.

Table III-13

Saccharin: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producer PMC, 2003-08

* * * * * * *

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA,

AND THE GLOBAL MARKET

U.S. IMPORTS

Proprietary Customs data identified 35 firms as significant importers of saccharin during the

period for which data were gathered. Questionnaires were sent to these firms and all firms identified in

the domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution as importers of saccharin. In addition,

an importers’ questionnaire was sent to the domestic producer.

Data on U.S. imports of saccharin are presented in table IV-1 and are based on unadjusted official

statistics of the Department of Commerce. Imports of saccharin enter the United States under HTS

subheading 2925.11.00, an eo nomine category for saccharin and its salts.

Imports of saccharin from China increased from 226,000 pounds to 3.0 million pounds (or by

1,205.7 percent) from 2006 to 2008. The significant growth in imports of saccharin from China may be

attributed to lower antidumping margins achieved through administrative reviews for the periods

December 27, 2002 to June 30, 2004 and July 2005 to June 2006, which effectively lowered the

antidumping margins on saccharin from China first to 17.05 percent, then to 0.00 percent for the Chinese

saccharin producer Shanghai Fortune. The largest importers of saccharin from China in 2008 were ***

and accounted for an aggregated *** percent of reported imports and *** percent of official statistics in

2008. About 48 and 25 percent of the import quantities from all other sources combined in 2008 were

from Korea and Taiwan, respectively.
IV-2

Table IV-1

Saccharin: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-02 and 2003-08

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

 Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 1,409 2,598 3,546 15 3 2 226 1,115 2,951

Nonsubject sources 1,363 1,490 1,767 2,982 3,937 4,608 4,275 4,931 5,396

 Total 2,772 4,088 5,313 2,997 3,940 4,610 4,501 6,046 8,346

 Landed, duty-paid value (1,000 dollars)

China 2,353 4,011 5,574 26 8 13 736 3,433 28,863

Nonsubject sources 2,963 3,195 3,497 6,795 10,211 14,297 13,315 15,705 55,618

 Total 5,316 7,206 9,071 6,821 10,219 14,310 14,050 19,137 84,481

 Unit value (per pound)

China $1.67 $1.54 $1.57 $1.72 $2.70 $7.03 $3.26 $3.08 $9.78

Nonsubject sources 2.17 2.14 1.98 2.28 2.59 3.10 3.11 3.18 10.31

 Average 1.92 1.76 1.71 2.28 2.59 3.10 3.12 3.17 10.12

 Share of quantity (percent)

China 50.8 63.6 66.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 5.0 18.4 35.4

Nonsubject sources 49.2 36.4 33.3 99.5 99.9 100.0 95.0 81.6 64.6

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Share of value (percent)

China 44.3 55.7 61.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 5.2 17.9 34.2

Nonsubject sources 55.7 44.3 38.6 99.6 99.9 99.9 94.8 82.1 65.8

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent)

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

Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Not applicable.

Note.–***.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

U.S. SHIPMENTS OF U.S. IMPORTS BY TYPE

Table IV-2 shows U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from China by type of saccharin. Responding

importers reported most shipments during the period were sodium saccharin, followed by calcium

saccharin and then acid (insoluble) saccharin.
 1

 U.S. importers’ questionnaire responses, section II-5.

 2

 The Commission faxed and emailed the questionnaires to Kaifeng Xinghua Fine Chemical Factory (“Kaifeng”);

Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Fortune”); Suzhou Fine Chemicals Group Co., Ltd. (“Suzhou”);

Tianjin Changjie Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin Changjie”); and Tianjin North Food (“Tianjin North”).

 3

 Data for 2000-02 were sourced from the original investigation final phase Confidential Staff Report; data for

2003-08 were sourced from The Survey of Saccharin in China, “Current Supply Situation,” CCM International

Limited, September 2008, and The Global Trade Atlas. 

IV-3

Table IV-2

Saccharin: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of Chinese product, by type of saccharin, 2000-02 and

2003-08

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO DECEMBER 31, 2008

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of saccharin from China after December 31, 2008. Of the 17 responding importers, three

reported imports or arrangements for importation of saccharin totaling *** pounds from China as shown

in the following tabulation, based on responses to Commission questionnaires:1

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

U.S. importers’ inventories of saccharin are presented in table IV-3. 

Table IV-3

Saccharin: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories from China and other countries, 2003-08 

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Industry sources indicated five producers of saccharin in China for the period of review,2

 which is

the same as the number of producers during the original investigation. Three producers responded to the

Commission questionnaires in the original investigation and one producer, Tianjin Changjie, responded

for the period of review.

China’s Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilization, Home Market Shipments,

Export Shipments, and Inventories

Data for Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories for the original

investigation are presented in table IV-4; analogous data for the period of review are presented in tables

IV-5 and IV-6.3

 During the original investigation, none of the responding producers of saccharin in

China produced products other than saccharin on the same equipment and machinery used in the

production of saccharin.
IV-4

Table IV-4

Saccharin: Chinese producers’ capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-02

Item

Actual experience

2000 2001 2002

 Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity 41,466 41,687 41,688

Production *** *** ***

End of period inventories *** *** ***

Shipments:

 Internal consumption *** *** ***

 Home market *** *** ***

 Exports to–

 The United States *** *** ***

 All other markets *** *** ***

 Total exports *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** ***

 Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization *** *** ***

Inventories to production *** *** ***

Inventories to total

shipments *** *** ***

Share of total shipments:

 Internal consumption *** *** ***

 Home market *** *** ***

 Exports to–

 The United States *** *** ***

 All other markets *** *** ***

 All export markets *** *** ***

Note.–Nonreconciliation of production, inventories, and shipments by 100,000 pounds in 2002 is the result of

unreconciled data reported by ***. 

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires in the original investigation.
 4 The Survey of Saccharin in China, “Current Supply Situation,” CCM International Limited, September 2008, 

p. 22.

 5

 Tianjin Changjie’s foreign producers’ questionnaire response, sections I-4, I-5, I-6, and II-16.

 6

 Ibid., section II-2.

 7

 Ibid., section II-4.

 8

 Ibid., section II-8.

 9

 Ibid., section 11-9.

 10 Tianjin Changjie’s foreign producers’ questionnaire response, section II-14.

 11 Ibid., section II-18.

IV-5

The capacity, production, exports, and percentage of production exported for each producer of

saccharin in China in 2007,4

 the last full calendar year for which data are available, are presented in the

following tabulation:

* * * * * * *

The Commission received a foreign producers’ questionnaire response from Tianjin Changjie. 

The firm ***. Tianjin Changjie reported that it ***.5

 Tianjin Changjie further reported that *** since

January 1, 2003. Specifically, ***.6

Tianjin Changjie also indicated that ***.7 With reference to constraints that set limits on

production capacity, Tianjin Changjie ***.8

 Tianjin Changjie reported that *** of its total sales in its

most recent fiscal year was represented by sales of saccharin.9

Table IV-5 presents Tianjin Changjie’s production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories of saccharin produced during the period for which data were gathered. Tianjin Changjie’s

capacity *** during 2003-08 while production ***. The firm reported *** internal consumption or

intracompany transfers and its commercial shipments to its home market ***. Tianjin Changjie’s

reported its main export markets as ***. The firm’s total exports ***.

When asked to describe the significance of the existing antidumping duty order covering imports

of saccharin from China, Tianjin Changjie reported that ***.10

Tianjin Changjie reported that it ***.11

Table IV-5

Saccharin: Tianjin Changjie’s producers’ capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2003-08

* * * * * * *

Since the Commission received a foreign producers’ questionnaire response only from Tianjin

Changjie, Commission staff attempted to gather additional data on the saccharin industry in China

through consultancy reports. Table IV-6 presents aggregated capacity, production, inventory, and

shipment data for the saccharin industry in China based on consultancy reports and the Global Trade

Atlas. 
IV-6

Table IV-6

Saccharin: Chinese producers’ capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2003-07 and

January-July 2008

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Jan.-Jul.

2008

 Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production *** *** *** *** *** ***

End-of-period inventories *** *** *** *** *** ***

Shipments: 

 Internal

 consumption/transfers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Commercial home market *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Exports to:

 United States 130 91 79 488 1,360 1,668

 All other export

 markets:

 European Union 13,805 11,909 10,155 9,415 10,464 8,213

 Asia 18,653 19,156 13,415 14,884 12,083 7,097

 Other markets 10,923 11,326 9,643 10,727 11,589 2,623

 Total exports 43,510 42,482 33,293 35,514 35,496 19,602

 Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventories/production *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventories/total shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of total shipments: 

 Internal

 consumption/transfers *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Home market commercial *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Exports to:

 United States *** *** *** *** *** ***

 European Union *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Asia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other markets *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total exports *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Not available, assumed negligible.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from the Global Trade Atlas (specific country and market region export data) and The Survey of Saccharin in

China, “Current Supply Situation,” CCM International, September 2008.
 12 The Survey of Saccharin in China, p. 24.

 13 Ibid., p. 22.

 14 Ibid., pp. 22-23 and 25. The Suzhou plant in China was closed for environmental and safety issues; however,

accidents that may have resulted in some fatalities also occurred in this time frame. In January 2007, due to a

malfunction of its ventilation fan, Suzhou had a poisonous sulfur dioxide gas leak which penetrated its surrounding

facilities and led to the poisoning of around 100 workers and the evacuation of more than 1,000 workers. On June

18, 2007, a broken reservoir pipe at Suzhou resulted in a sodium hypochlorite leak. PMC’s posthearing brief, exh.1,

p. 37, and exh. 10.

 15 Ibid., p. 23.

 16 Ibid., p. 25.

 17 “China Tightens Control on Saccharin Production,” Dominique Patton, Foodnavigator.com, July 18, 2006,

retrieved February 18, 2009.

 18 Importers’ questionnaire responses, section I-12, and PMC’s Response to the Notice of Institution, exh. 5.

IV-7

In order to protect the sugar industry, the Chinese government has restricted saccharin production

since the late 1990s, and since 2002, China’s saccharin capacity ***.12 Under such strict supervision,

China’s saccharin production was ***.13 ***.14

***.15

***.16

According to the China Sugar Association, in 2006, the Chinese government restricted saccharin

sales to its domestic market to about 7.7 million pounds, the same target set in previous years. Saccharin

industry sources also say that the Chinese government’s action is an effort to protect the environment

from damage caused by phthalic acid used in saccharin production and responsible for significant

pollution of water in China.17

Trade Restrictions in Third-Country Markets

In its questionnaires, the Commission asked whether the firms’ exports of saccharin are subject to

tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade in any countries other than the United States. India imposed its own

provisional antidumping duty on imports of saccharin from China on June 6, 2006, which became final

March 19, 2007. Specifically, imports of Chinese saccharin into India currently are subject to dumping

margins ranging from $717.21 per metric ton to $2,151.33 per metric ton as follows:18

Producer Exporter

Antidumping duty amount per

metric ton (dollars)

Shanghai Fortune Majestic International Trading Co., Ltd. $717.21

Shanghai Fortune All others 807.77

Kaifeng Any 1,093.28

Tianjin Changjie Any 1,127.67

All other producers Any 2,151.33
IV-8

GLOBAL MARKET

Supply and Demand

Data for global saccharin production by country are not publicly available. In consequence,

publicly available Global Trade Atlas (“GTIS”) trade volume data were the principal source for the

current review encompassing calendar years 2003-08. GTIS data are available at the 6-digit HTS 2925.11

level, which may include saccharin outside the scope of the review. Export data and companion import

data for 15 leading nonsubject global exporters of saccharin were extracted from the GTIS database, of

which six countries currently ship saccharin to the United States (India, Japan, Netherlands, South Korea,

Spain, and Taiwan). Individual country trade balances (trade surpluses and deficits) were subsequently

calculated, and are also included herein. Data for Israel, which also ships saccharin to the United States,

is currently not available on the GTIS database. Composite European Union (“EU”) external trade data

are also reported, together with reference data on the United States and on the subject country of China. 

Only two major exporters of saccharin (China and Korea) are principally exporters of the

product; and thus, they experience large trade surpluses. Several large global exporters, however, have

traditionally experienced relatively large trade deficits in saccharin. Both exports and imports of such

countries (e.g., Germany, Japan, and Taiwan) have been growing, but import demand has continued to

outstrip that of exports. External trade outside of the EU countries is significant, but relatively balanced

between exports from out of the region and imports into the region. As would be expected, there is a

significant amount of cross-border trade between EU countries, the EU-15 countries in particular. 

Export data by volume for major nonsubject exporting countries of interest for the five-year

period 2003-07 are shown in table IV-7; U.S. and China export trade is shown for reference. The

countries are ranked based on calendar year 2007. 

In 2007, Korea was the leading nonsubject global saccharin exporter with 36 percent of the 15-

country total and Korea and Germany together accounted for 58 percent of the total. Germany, Korea, 

and Taiwan experienced export growth rates significantly above average during the five-year period

examined. During the five-year period, saccharin export volume grew by 45 percent for the top 15

nonsubject countries. EU external trade also increased. 
IV-9

Table IV-7

Saccharin: Global exports, by country and by regions, 2003-07

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 365 187 2,090 2,210 1,822

China 43,510 42,482 33,293 35,514 35,496

Nonsubject exporting countries:

 South Korea 3,922 4,417 4,256 3,933 5,117

 Germany 1,931 2,564 2,156 2,410 3,062

 Taiwan 1 150 612 732 878

 Netherlands 584 606 778 952 875

 Japan 549 372 557 746 802

 Singapore 538 51 44 0 586

 Belgium 324 564 542 324 478

 Spain 527 589 505 542 434

 India 214 663 262 305 388

 United Kingdom 428 139 551 335 353

 Switzerland 526 254 367 240 289

 France 159 276 203 209 280

 Austria 126 57 62 29 216

 Turkey 6 22 8 10 198

 South Africa 34 43 37 106 177

 All other 403 545 481 366 761

 Total nonsubject exporting countries 10,271 11,311 11,420 11,241 14,895

 Total 54,146 53,980 46,803 48,965 52,213

Regions:

EU15 (external trade) 1,797 2,174 1,975 2,125 2,440

EU27 (external trade) 1,360 1,812 1,587 1,287 1,709

Note.–Export figures for HTS subheading 2925.11.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

Principal nonsubject saccharin importing countries of interest are shown in the data of table IV-8. 

These countries exhibit significant overlap (10 countries) with the countries reported in the previous

nonsubject export table, table IV-7.

Germany, the top global saccharin importer after the United States, ranks third in order of exports

after subject China and nonsubject Korea, yet it is a major trade deficit country. According to the

available GTIS import data, saccharin import demand fluctuated upward by 10.2 percent during the 
IV-10

Table IV-8

Saccharin: Global exports, by country and by regions, 2003-07

Source 2003 2004 2005 20061 2007

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 2,997 4,068 4,589 4,802 6,470

China 193 226 83 86 94

Nonsubject importing countries:

 Germany 3,922 4,500 4,381 4,098 6,105

 Spain 3,073 3,327 3,428 3,115 3,188

 United Kingdom 4,493 3,655 3,128 3,331 2,978

 South Korea 1,797 2,021 2,814 2,889 2,920

 Japan 3,496 2,178 2,499 2,106 2,540

 India 3,300 4,201 4,210 3,888 2,495

 Brazil 1,918 3,252 2,209 2,442 2,493

 Taiwan 1,482 1,576 1,459 1,815 1,803

 Switzerland 1,589 1,419 1,864 1,643 1,566

 Argentina 1,475 1,649 1,480 1,344 1,372

 Turkey 479 761 775 537 1,243

 Russia 1,485 1,547 991 1,216 1,198

 Mexico 542 719 740 994 1,112

 Thailand 1,152 1,305 936 1,362 1,061

 Netherlands 930 802 1,041 1,186 1,049

 All other 10,148 9,201 8,770 37,796 9,322

 Total nonsubject importing countries 41,281 42,111 40,724 69,761 42,446

 Total 44,471 46,405 45,396 74,649 49,010

Regions:

EU15 (external trade) 11,645 11,347 10,717 9,910 11,885

EU27 (external trade) 12,696 12,183 11,376 10,600 12,322

 1 The reason for the large increase in saccharin imports into all other nonsubject countries is attributable to

imports of saccharin to France. 

Note.–Import figures are for HTS subheading 2925.11.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

2003-07 period. Import demand growth from the leading global importers, the United States and

Germany, was well above the average during 2003-07.
IV-11

Trade Balances

Table IV-9 contains GTIS data for 2003-07, accessed and organized into trade balances ranked

based on calendar year 2007, from the largest trade surplus country to the largest trade deficit country, for

various nonsubject importing countries of interest. Data for the subject country, China, is also provided

for reference. 

China and Korea command the largest global trade surpluses in order of importance, as shown. 

The largest global trade deficit countries are The United States, Germany, India, and Japan, in order of

importance. The remaining country, Taiwan shows a more moderate trade deficit position. Korea’s trade

surplus position fluctuated upward during 2003-07. On the trade deficit side, however, the situation is

mixed. While the trade deficit position of the United States and Germany widened during 2003-07, the

trade deficits gradually fell in India, Japan, and Taiwan.
IV-12

Table IV-9

Saccharin: World, subject- and nonsubject-country exports, imports, and trade balances, 2003-071

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

 Quantity (1,000 pounds)

World:

 Exports 54,146 53,981 46,803 48,965 52,212

 Imports 44,471 46,405 45,396 74,649 49,009

 Net exports/(imports) 9,675 7,576 1,408 (25,684) 3,203

United States:

 Exports 365 187 2,090 2,210 1,822

 Imports 2,997 4,068 4,589 4,802 6,470

 Net exports/(imports) (2,632) (3,881) (2,499) (2,591) (4,648)

Subject:

 China:

 Exports 43,510 42,482 33,293 35,514 35,496

 Imports 193 226 83 86 94

 Net exports/(imports) 43,317 42,257 33,211 35,428 35,402

Nonsubject:

 Korea:

 Exports 3,922 4,417 4,256 3,933 5,117

 Imports 1,797 2,021 2,814 2,889 2,920

 Net exports/(imports) 2,125 2,396 1,442 1,044 2,197

 Taiwan:

 Exports 1 150 612 732 878

 Imports 1,482 1,576 1,459 1,815 1,803

 Net exports/(imports) (1,481) (1,425) (848) (1,083) (925)

 Japan:

 Exports 549 372 557 746 802

 Imports 3,496 2,178 2,499 2,106 2,540

 Net exports/(imports) (2,947) (1,806) (1,942) (1,360) (1,738)

 India:

 Exports 214 663 262 305 388

 Imports 3,300 4,201 4,210 3,888 2,495

 Net exports/(imports) (3,086) (3,538) (3,948) (3,582) (2,107)

 Germany:

 Exports 1,931 2,564 2,156 2,410 3,062

 Imports 3,922 4,500 4,381 4,098 6,105

 Net exports/(imports) (1,991) (1,936) (2,224) (1,689) (3,042)

 1 The trade balance is defined as the differential between exports and imports (exports - imports = net trade). A positive trade

balance (net exports) results when exports are greater than imports; a negative trade balance (net imports) results when imports

are greater than exports. Trade balances are ranked from high to low (positive to negative) based on calendar year 2007. 

Note.–Export and import figures are for HTS subheading 2925.11.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
IV-13

Information concerning exports of saccharin from China to world destinations is presented in 

table IV-10 . 

Table IV-10

Saccharin: China’s world export destinations, 2003-07 

Destination 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

World 43,510 42,482 33,293 35,514 35,496

 Brazil 4,744 4,070 2,158 3,302 4,047

 Germany 3,605 3,220 2,820 1,886 4,019

 Korea South 1,723 2,181 2,562 2,710 2,536

 Spain 2,438 2,924 2,276 1,907 1,923

 Japan 3,157 1,403 1,664 1,269 1,516

 Taiwan 1,331 1,542 1,024 1,787 1,432

 United States 130 91 79 488 1,360

 United Kingdom 2,200 1,211 1,222 1,359 1,308

 Indonesia 3,461 3,616 1,192 1,231 1,267

 Argentina 1,576 1,637 1,243 1,265 1,142

 India 3,684 3,857 3,417 2,937 1,095

 France 1,297 1,068 1,369 1,396 1,035

 Pakistan 923 1,243 683 1,558 959

 Vietnam 775 844 1,030 951 940

 Thailand 899 951 645 1,023 916

 Subtotal 31,943 29,858 23,386 25,068 25,496

All other 11,567 12,624 9,907 10,446 10,000

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

 1 The estimated cost was obtained by subtracting the customs value from the c.i.f. value of the imports for 2008

and then dividing by the customs value.

 2

 A real exchange rate is calculated by adjusting the nominal rate for movements in producer prices in the United 

States and other countries. 

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICING

Raw Material Costs

Raw materials constitute an important part of the final cost of saccharin. During 2003-08, PMC's

raw material costs were *** of the cost of goods sold in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005,

*** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008. The starting material that PMC

currently uses in producing saccharin is ***. 

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Ocean transportation costs for saccharin shipped from China to the United States averaged about

1.0 percent of the customs value of these imports during 2008. This estimate is derived from official

import data and represents the transportation and other charges on imports.1

U. S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. inland transportation costs generally account for a small share of the delivered price of

saccharin. PMC reported that these costs accounted for about *** percent of the total delivered cost.

Estimates by importers ranged from less than 1 percent to 5 percent, with the majority reporting shares of

1 percent or less.

Inland shipping distances for U.S.-produced saccharin were compared with those for imports

from China. PMC reported that *** percent of its U.S. sales occur within 100 miles of its production

facility, *** percent are within distances of 101 to 1,000 miles, and *** percent occur at distances of over

1,000 miles from its facility. For firms reporting imports from China during 2008, an average of 5

percent of sales occur within 100 miles of importers’ storage facilities or ports of entry, 94 percent are

within 101 to 1,000 miles, and less than 1 percent involve distances of over 1,000 miles.

Exchange Rates

The nominal exchange rate for the Chinese yuan in relation to the U.S. dollar is shown on a

quarterly basis in figure V-1 for the period January-March 2003 through July-September 2008. The data

show that the yuan has appreciated relative to the dollar since 2003. A real exchange rate could not be

computed because of the lack of producer price indices for China.2
V-2

Figure V-1

Exchange rates: Index of the nominal exchange rates of the currency of China in relation to the

U.S. dollar, by quarters, 2003-08

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, December 2008 and earlier issues.

PRICING PRACTICES

Questionnaire responses show that prices of saccharin are determined in several ways.

PMC reported that most of its pricing was determined by *** during 2007 and 2008. During earlier years

of the 2003-08 period, it also made use of *** and ***. Among importers of saccharin from China,

methods reported included transaction-by-transaction negotiations and contracts. One firm reported that

it gives quotations based on the current market supply and demand situations of saccharin.

PMC reported that it ***, while discounts of importers of saccharin from China vary by

company. Among the eight importers, four reported that they do not offer discounts and four reported

that they provide discounts based on quantity or volume. Neither PMC nor any of the importers give ***. 

 Saccharin prices are commonly quoted on *** by PMC and on either an f.o.b or delivered basis

by importers of saccharin from China. Among the eight responding importers, three quote on an f.o.b

basis, three quote on a delivered basis, and two quote both ways. None of the firms reported internet

sales.

All sales of saccharin by PMC are on a *** basis, while imports from China are sold on both a

spot and contract basis. Among importers of Chinese product, four firms reported that all sales are on a

spot basis, and the other four reported a mixture of spot and contract sales. Contract periods reported

ranged from two months to one year, with quantities and prices typically fixed during the contract period.

None of the importers reported the use of meet or release provisions.
 3

 According to questionnaire responses by five importers, the world’s large producer of saccharin was closed in

China creating a world-wide shortage of saccharin. ***, an importer and purchaser of saccharin reported that Suzhou

was closed by the Chinese government in October 2007, creating a global capacity shortage. Reportedly, the

Chinese government also asked four other saccharin producers to close for two months starting in December 2008. 

According to ***, these events caused prices to rise over 700 percent and it became difficult to obtain saccharin. 

V-3

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly data for the total

quantity and f.o.b. value of saccharin shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market during January

2003-December 2008. Pricing data were requested for the following products.

Product 1.—Sodium saccharin, granular, sized or unsized, FCC, 10-17 percent water.

Product 2.—Sodium saccharin, powder, FCC, 3-6 percent water.

Product 3.—Acid or insoluble saccharin, spray-dried powder, FCC.

Product 4.—Calcium saccharin, granular, spray-dried powder, FCC.

Product 5.—Sodium saccharin, granular, sized or unsized, non-food grade, 10-17 percent water.

The U.S. producer and 11 importers of saccharin from China including PMC reported varying

amounts of price information. During 2003-08, the combined sales of the specified products accounted

for nearly 100 percent of PMC’s domestic shipments and 4.5 percent of imports from China. 

Price Trends 

Weighted-average quarterly f.o.b. prices of the U.S. producer and importers of saccharin from

China for the five products are shown in tables V- 1 through and V-5 and figure 2. PMC’s prices for all

five products increased from the first quarter of 2003 onward. The *** price increases recorded for

products 1, 2 and 3 during 2008 involved very small sales quantities as compared to earlier periods. 

There is evidence that these price spikes were the result of a world-wide shortage of saccharin.3

 The

spotty price data for imports from China also reflected irregular increases for all five products.

Table V-1

Saccharin: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1,1

and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2003-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

Saccharin: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 2,

1

 and margins of

underselling/(overselling), January 2003-December 2008

* * * * * * *
V-4

Table V-3

Saccharin: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 3,

1

 and margins of

underselling/(overselling), January 2003-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

Saccharin: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 4,

1

 and margins of

underselling/(overselling), January 2003-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

Saccharin: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for product 5,

1

 and margins of

underselling/(overselling), January 2003-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Saccharin: Weighted-average quarterly f.o.b. prices of products 1-5, January 2003-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

Imports from China were priced lower than U.S.-produced saccharin in 26 out of 41 comparisons

as shown in table V-6. Margins of underselling ranged from 0.9 to 97 percent and margins of overselling

ranged from 1.1 to 673.9 percent .

Table V-6

Saccharin: Instances and ranges of margins of under/overselling from the original investigation

January 2000-December 2002, and the first review, January 2003-December 2008

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

First Review:1

All products 26 0.9 to 97.0 15 1.1 to 673.9

Original investigation:2

All products 45 6.0 to 59.6 0 -

 1 January 2003 to December 2008.

 2 Price data for the original investigation were for the period January 2000 to December 2002.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and the staff report from the

original investigation (USITC Pub. 3606, June 2003).
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

31504 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 106 / Monday, June 2, 2008 / Notices 

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. 08–5–183, 

expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

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. 

TABLE C.—INFLATION RATES (CURRENT AND LOCKED-IN) 

[Derived from BEA Data] 

Calendar year 

Implicit price 

deflator for GDP 

(base = 1996) 

Implicit price 

deflator for GDP 

(base = 2000) 

Current 

annual 

inflation rate 

Locked-in annual 

inflation rate 

1994 ......................................................................................... $96.01 

1995 ......................................................................................... 98.10 

1996 ......................................................................................... 100.00 

1997 ......................................................................................... 101.95 

1998 ......................................................................................... 103.20 

1999 ......................................................................................... 104.65 

2000 ......................................................................................... 107.04 $100.00 

4. Because price thresholds are fixed 

for previous years, the current inflation 

rate displayed in Table C above may not 

correspond precisely to the rate actually 

employed to calculate previous price 

thresholds. For example, the GDP 

deflator posted on the BEA Web site in 

March 2008 shows an inflation rate for 

2004 of 2.9 percent. However, back in 

March 2005, when the 2004 price 

threshold was locked-in, the BEA Web 

site showed an inflation rate of 2.1 

percent, resulting in a change for the 

deepwater oil price threshold for most 

leases, as shown in the first column of 

the Deepwater Table on the Web site, 

from $32.81/bbl in 2003 to $33.50/bbl in 

2004. Note that the figures that were 

shown on the BEA Web site in March 

of each year would be consistent with 

the adjustments made in the price 

thresholds from year to year. Rounding 

explains any remaining small 

differences between calculated lockedin inflation rates and those rates 

depicted on the MMS Web site. 

Therefore, to replicate the calculation 

for previous price thresholds, use the 

locked-in inflation rate. To replicate the 

calculation for the estimated price 

threshold, prior to March of the 

subsequent year, use the current 

inflation rate. 

Additional Information and Notes 

About the Web Site 

1. Beginning in the second quarter of 

each year, the MMS will estimate the 

average market price at which oil or gas 

would have to sell during the remainder 

of the calendar year for the estimated 

price threshold to be exceeded for that 

year. If that estimated market price is 

shown in the table as a zero, the average 

price at which oil or gas would have to 

be sold during the rest of the calendar 

year as of that time is guaranteed to 

exceed the estimated price threshold for 

the calendar year. 

2. The yellow highlight shown for 

selected actual annual market prices 

indicates years in which at least some 

leases were not eligible for royalty relief 

because actual prices exceeded the 

applicable price thresholds set for those 

leases. The coral highlight indicates 

years in which no leases were eligible 

for royalty relief because actual prices 

exceed all applicable price thresholds.

For example, in calendar year 2007, the 

actual average price of natural gas of 

$7.12 (per mmbtu) exceeded the shallow 

water, deep natural gas price threshold 

levels of $4.08 for leases issued in Sale 

178 (2001), and $5.83 for leases issued 

in all other Gulf of Mexico Sales held 

from 2001–2003 that did not exercise 

the option to switch terms offered under 

30 CFR 203.48, but did not exceed the 

price threshold level of $10.15 for all 

other leases with relief under 30 CFR 

203.47. 

3. Production generated royalty-free 

under the deep gas program counts 

against the remaining royalty 

suspension volume, with one exception. 

That exception involves production 

from March 1, 2004, through May 2, 

2004, from deep wells that qualified for 

royalty suspension under 30 CFR 203.40 

through 203.48 (see 69 FR 24055). 

4. Regulations pertaining to price 

thresholds include 30 CFR 203.47, 

203.54, 203.78, 260.110, and 260.122. 

Dated: April 21, 2008. 

Chris C. Oynes, 

Associate Director for Offshore Minerals 

Management. 

[FR Doc. E8–12225 Filed 5–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1013 (Review)] 

Saccharin From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on saccharin 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 saccharin 

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 July 22, 2008. Comments 

on the adequacy of responses may be 

filed with the Commission by August 

15, 2008. 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, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 106 / Monday, June 2, 2008 / Notices 31505 

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

207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2008. 

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 July 9, 2003, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

saccharin from China (68 FR 40906). 

The Commission is conducting a 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 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 

one Domestic Like Product consisting of 

all forms of saccharin. 

(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 all domestic producers of 

saccharin. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is July 9, 2003. 

(6) 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 advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official recently has advised that a fiveyear review is no longer considered the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

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 July 22, 2008. 

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 August 15, 

2008. 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
31506 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 106 / Monday, June 2, 2008 / Notices 

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, 

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 since 

the Order Date. 

(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 2007 (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 2007 (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 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 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 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 2007 

(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 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 since the Order 

Date, 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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 19, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–11527 Filed 5–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
53444 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 

1 Vice Chairman Pearson dissenting with respect 

to the respondent interested party group response. 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 10, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–21537 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1013 (Review)] 

Saccharin From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on saccharin from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

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

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on saccharin from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule 

for the review will be established and 

announced at a later date. 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). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 5, 

2008. 

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: On 

September 5, 2008, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to a 

full review in the subject five-year 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (72 

FR 31504, June 2, 2008) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate.1 The 

Commission also found that other 

circumstances warranted conducting a 

full review. A 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. 

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. 

Dated: September 10, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–21536 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 
59604 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–878 

Saccharin from the People’s Republic 

of China: Notice of Final Results of 

Expedited Sunset Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 9, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Staebler Berton, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4037. 

SUMMARY: On June 5, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

saccharin from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). On the basis of a notice 

of intent to participate, and an adequate 

substantive response filed on behalf of 

domestic interested parties, as well as a 

lack of response from respondent 

interested parties, the Department 

conducted an expedited (120–day) 

sunset review. As a result of the sunset 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 5, 2008, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on saccharin from the PRC 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

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

See Initiation of Five–Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews, 73 FR 31974 (June 5, 2008) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On June 20, 2008, 

the Department received a notice of 

intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, PMC Specialties 

Group, Inc. (‘‘PMCSG’’), within the 

deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. PMCSG claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as the sole domestic producer of 

saccharin in the United States and the 

petitioner in the original investigation. 

On July 7, 2008, the Department 

received a substantive response from 

PMCSG within the deadline specified in 

section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the 

Department’s regulations. We did not 

receive responses from any respondent 

interested parties to this proceeding. As 

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

of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department determined to conduct an 

expedited review of the order. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this 

antidumping duty order is saccharin. 

Saccharin is defined as a non–nutritive 

sweetener used in beverages and foods, 

personal care products such as 

toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and 

animal feeds. It is also used in 

metalworking fluids. There are four 

primary chemical compositions of 

saccharin: (1) Sodium saccharin 

(American Chemical Society Chemical 

Abstract Service (‘‘CAS’’) Registry 128– 

44–9); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS 

Registry 6485–34–3); (3) acid (or 

insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81– 

07–2); and (4) research grade saccharin. 

Most of the U.S.-produced and imported 

grades of saccharin from the PRC are 

sodium and calcium saccharin, which 

are available in granular, powder, 

spray–dried powder, and liquid forms. 

The merchandise subject to this order is 

currently classifiable under subheading 

2925.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) and includes all types of 

saccharin imported under this HTSUS 

subheading, including research and 

specialized grades. Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

scope of this order remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated concurrently 

with this notice, and is hereby adopted 

by this notice. The issues discussed in 

the Decision Memorandum include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and the magnitude of the 

margins likely to prevail if the order 

were 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 the 

Central Records Unit in room 1117 of 

the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the 

Act, we determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on saccharin 

from the PRC would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(percent) 

Suzhou Fine Chemical Group 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 291.57 

Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 249.39 

Kaifeng Xinhua Fine Chemical 

Factory .................................... 281.97 

PRC–Wide .................................. 329.94 

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 section 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(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: October 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–24030 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Applications and 

Reports for Registration as a Tanner or 

Agent 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices 72837 

1The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

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 of 

investigation Nos. 731–TA–394–A & 

399–A may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket 

(‘‘EDIS’’) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—In June 2006, the 

Commission determined that revocation 

of the antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings from France, Germany, Italy, 

Japan, and the United Kingdom would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a 

reasonable foreseeable time. The 

Commission’s determinations for Japan 

and the United Kingdom were appealed 

to the Court of International Trade. On 

September 9, 2008, the Court issued a 

decision remanding the matter to the 

Commission for further proceedings. 

NSK v. United States, Slip Op. 08–95 

(Ct. Int’l Trade, Sept. 9, 2008). In its 

opinion, the Court issued an order 

instructing the Commission to (1) 

‘‘conduct a Bratsk analysis of nonsubject imports as outlined in this 

opinion;’’(2) ‘‘reassess supply 

conditions within the domestic 

industry,’’ i.e., the industry’s 

restructuring efforts during the period of 

review, and (3) ‘‘reexamine its findings 

with regard to likely impact and its 

decision to cumulate imports from the 

United Kingdom in light of changes in 

its determinations that may result as a 

consequence of the foregoing remand 

instructions.’’ The Commission initiated 

its remand proceeding on October 8, 

2008. 

On September 18, 2008, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

issued its opinion in Mittal Steel Point 

Lisas, Ltd. v. United States (Ct. No. 

2007–1552), which clarified and limited 

its holding in Bratsk Aluminium 

Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 

(Fed. Cir. 2006). On October 9, 2008, the 

Commission filed a motion for 

reconsideration with the Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’), requesting 

that the CIT reconsider its decision in 

light of the Federal Circuit’s analysis in 

Mittal. As part of that motion, the 

Commission also requested the CIT to 

issue a stay of its remand proceeding 

pending the Court’s disposition of the 

motion for reconsideration. DefendantIntervenor The Timken Company 

(‘‘Timken’’) filed a similar motion for 

reconsideration and a motion to stay the 

remand proceeding. 

On October 29, 2008, the CIT granted 

the motions of the Commission and 

Timken and ordered a stay of the 

Commission’s remand proceeding. In 

that Order, the CIT also directed that the 

stay shall remain in effect until the 

Court has ruled on the pending motions 

for reconsideration. 

Accordingly, the remand proceedings 

in this matter are hereby stayed pending 

further order. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 24, 2008. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–28392 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–986 and 987 

(Review)] 

Ferrovanadium From China and South 

Africa 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (Commission) determines, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

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

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on ferrovanadium from China 

and South Africa 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 these 

reviews on December 3, 2007 (72 FR 

67962) and determined on March 7, 

2008 that it would conduct full reviews 

(73 FR 14484, March 18, 2008). Notice 

of the scheduling of the Commission’s 

reviews and of a public hearing to be 

held in connection therewith was given 

by posting copies of the notice in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

Washington, DC, and by publishing the 

notice in the Federal Register on July 8, 

2008 (73 FR 39040). The hearing was 

held in Washington, DC, on October 7, 

2008, and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these reviews to the 

Secretary of Commerce on November 

24, 2008. 

The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 4046 

(November 2008), entitled 

Ferrovanadium from China and South 

Africa: Investigation Nos. 731–TA–986– 

987 (Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 24, 2008. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–28393 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1013 (Review)] 

Saccharin From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on saccharin from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of a full review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on saccharin 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). 

DATES: Effective Date: November 24, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Trainor (202–205–3354), 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: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
72838 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices 

Background.—On September 10, 

2008, the Commission determined that 

responses to its notice of institution of 

the subject five-year review were such 

that a full review pursuant to section 

751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (73 

FR 53444, September 16, 2008). A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

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 this review as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not file 

an additional notice of appearance. 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. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

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

who are parties to the review. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on March 9, 2009, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the review 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on March 26, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before March 20, 

2009. A nonparty who has testimony 

that may aid the Commission’s 

deliberations may request permission to 

present a short statement at the hearing. 

All parties and nonparties desiring to 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should attend a 

prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 

a.m. on March 24, 2009, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by sections 

201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 

207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the review may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is March 

18, 2009. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is April 7, 2009; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

review may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the review on or before April 7, 2009. 

On April 29, 2009, the Commission will 

make available to parties all information 

on which they have not had an 

opportunity to comment. Parties may 

submit final comments on this 

information on or before May 1, 2009, 

but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also 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). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

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 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: November 24, 2008. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–28391 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1121–NEW] 

Bureau of Justice Statistics; Agency 

Information Collection Activities: 

Proposed Collection; Comments 

Requested 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Proposed 

Collection; Clinical Indicators of Sexual 

Violence in Custody. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, has 

submitted the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. This 

proposed information collection was 

previously published in the Federal 

Register Volume 73, Number 186, page 

55133 on September 24, 2008, allowing 

for a 30-day period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until December 31, 2008. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on

the estimated public burden or 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
1

 Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson determined that the respondent interested party group

response was adequate. 

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Saccharin from China

 Inv. No. 731-TA-1013 (Review)

On September 5, 2008, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full

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 to the notice of institution of the five-year review

of the antidumping duty order on imports of saccharin from China from PMC Specialties Group,

Inc. (“PMC”), the sole domestic producer and the primary importer of saccharin from China in

2007. The Commission found this domestic interested party response to the notice of institution

to be individually adequate. Because the Commission received an individually adequate response

from PMC, the sole domestic producer of saccharin, the Commission also determined that the

domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission received one respondent interested party response to the notice of

institution from Rit-Chem Co., Inc. (“Rit-Chem”), an importer of the subject merchandise during

the original investigation, and found this respondent interested party response to be individually

adequate. Although the Commission received individually adequate interested party responses to

the notice of institution from importer and domestic interested party PMC, which alone

accounted for the majority of imports of the subject merchandise in 2007, and importer

respondent interested party Rit-Chem, the Commission determined that the respondent interested

party group response to the notice of institution was inadequate.1

 However, in light of PMC’s

status as the sole domestic producer of the like product and the primary importer of subject

merchandise in 2007, the Commission found that changes in the conditions of competition

warranted conducting a full 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).
B-1

APPENDIX B

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Saccharin from China

Inv. No.: 731-TA-1013 (Review)

Date and Time: March 26, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with this review in the Main Hearing Room, 500 E Street (room

101), SW, Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order:

(Adam H. Gordon, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)

In Support of Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order:

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

PMC Specialties Group, Inc.

Zetta Bouligaraki, President, PMC Specialities Group, Inc.

Mark R. Miller, Vice President, Manufacturing and Director, Regulatory Affairs, 

PMC Specialities Group, Inc.

Cory Davids, Marketing Specialist, PMC Specialities Group, Inc.

Michael T. Kerwin, Economist, Georgetown Economic Services, LLC

Adam H. Gordon )

) – OF COUNSEL

Grace W. Kim )
B-4

In Opposition to Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order:

TRInternational Inc.

Seattle, WA

on behalf of

Tianjin Changjie Chemical Co., Ltd.

Dennis Delaney, Sales Manager, TR International Inc.

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order: 

(Adam H. Gordon, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Saccharin: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

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

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1): *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

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

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3 2 226 1,115 2,951 19450.6 -79.8 -39.7 12149.9 394.4 164.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8 13 736 3,433 28,863 111134.2 -68.2 57.0 5582.8 366.5 740.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.72 $2.70 $7.03 $3.26 $3.08 $9.78 469.0 57.1 160.4 -53.6 -5.6 217.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,982 3,937 4,608 4,275 4,931 5,396 80.9 32.0 17.0 -7.2 15.3 9.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,795 10,211 14,297 13,315 15,705 55,618 718.5 50.3 40.0 -6.9 18.0 254.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.28 $2.59 $3.10 $3.11 $3.18 $10.31 352.3 13.8 19.6 0.4 2.3 223.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,997 3,940 4,610 4,501 6,046 8,346 178.5 31.5 17.0 -2.4 34.3 38.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,821 10,219 14,310 14,050 19,137 84,481 1138.5 49.8 40.0 -1.8 36.2 341.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.28 $2.59 $3.10 $3.12 $3.17 $10.12 344.7 13.9 19.7 0.6 1.4 219.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 325 309 326 341 434 691 112.6 -4.8 5.5 4.4 27.3 59.4

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Not meaningful.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-3

D-1

APPENDIX D

COMMENTS ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXISTING 

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND

THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

D-3

U.S. PRODUCERS COMMENTS

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in their

operations or organization relating to the production of saccharin in the future if the antidumping

duty order was to be revoked. (Question II-4)

PMC

“***.”

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the antidumping

duty order on their production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases,

employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development

expenditures, and asset values. (Question II-17) 

PMC

“***.”

The Commission asked U.S. producers whether they anticipated changes in their

production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues,

costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, or asset

values relating to the production of saccharin in the future if the antidumping duty order was to be

revoked. (Question II-18)

PMC

“***.”

U.S. IMPORTERS COMMENTS

The Commission asked U.S. importers if they would anticipate any changes in their

operations or organization relating to the importation of saccharin the future if the antidumping

duty order was to be revoked. (Question II-4)

***

“We are in direct competition with saccharin from China. We currently import and sell saccharin from

Korea.”

***

“Revoking the antidumping duty of saccharin from China would reduce our firm’s raw material cost and

therefore make our pricing more competitive in the U.S. sweetener market. No detailed figures are

available at this time.”

***

“Our cost of feed may go down.”
D-4

***

“No.”

***

“If the order were revoked, we anticipate that large volumes of Chinese saccharin would enter the United

States and the price of imported Chinese saccharin would decline. With prices at low levels it would no

longer be profitable for our company to trade in saccharin.”

***

“No.”

***

“We are currently handling saccharin from India and Japan, however, if the order is revoked, we will need

to look at also importing saccharin from China to be competitive.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“With any pending anti-dumping duty put with saccharin, we will make a commercial decision and no

longer import Indian saccharin.”

***

“No.”

***

“*** has not been involved in importing or purchasing saccharin since 2004 and does not anticipate any

future involvement.”

***

“No. Due to quality issues and risk mitigation.” 
D-5

***

“***.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty order covering imports of saccharin in terms of their effect on their firms’

imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. (Question II-11)

***

“We have only sold material originating from Korea.”

***

“The existing antidumping duty actually prevents *** from selling more saccharin in the United States.

At times we feel that certain questionable business practices by *** seem to be unfair and drive market

prices to end users incredibly high.”

***

“It keeps the cost of our end product higher than without the antidumping duty. This works toward

making our customers uncompetitive in the world market.”

***

“We have a relationship with Shanghai Fortune. I would expect a flood of cheap imports if the duties

were removed.”

***

“The antidumping duty order limits the number of Chinese companies from which we can import. Our

company would only purchase saccharin from a Chinese company subject to a zero margin.”

***

“None.”
D-6

***

“Because of the anti-dumping duty order, we started importing saccharin from Japan and India. The

market prices went up from the level of around US$4 per kilo to US$8 per kilo in 2003.”

***

“The company only imported small quantities late in 2008 due to shortage of supply late in the year.”

***

“The significance of the order is limited for *** since *** does not import any Chinese origin saccharin,

nor did *** import Chinese origin saccharin before the order was issued. However, as our supplier, ***,

doesn’t produce saccharin (raw material) by itself, and needs to source it from others, *** has been losing

its flexibility of sourcing.”

***

“The antidumping duty order has allowed *** to sell saccharin made in India, a business that has been

growing over the last three years.” 

***

“We have made 3 importation of Saccharin since 2003. Once we learned about the pending saccharin

anti-dumping case, we have made a commercial decision not to import saccharin moving forward.”

***

“Our business was initially negatively impacted for two years as we sourced product from other

countries.”

***

“Given that prior to the anti-dumping order, ***’s purchases and sales of saccharin were an insignificant

part of its business, the implementation of the anti-dumping order confirmed ***’s intention to

discontinue offering the product at the end of 2004.”

***

“Biggest impact was pricing (increase).”

***

“***.”

***

“The dramatic importation of Shanghai Fortune’s saccharin into the U.S. makes the antidumping tariff

against Chinese producers a joke. They have abused their 0% reduction and purchase from most plants

forbidden to ship to States. It is as if there is no antidumping tariff in effect. They found a way around the
D-7

DOC/ITC regulations. Their own production is so small that there is no way they could produce any

quantities close to the numbers entering the States. Further, they do not produce calcium and have been

importing calcium saccharin as well from Kaifeng. They have made a mockery of the government.”

***

“The antidumping duty effectively increases the domestic price as compared to the global price. This

difference made the US market more attractive to non-subject manufacturers, which improved availability

during the extreme shortages since Oct. 2007. The combination effect of antidumping and the shortage

motivated us to begin imports in 2008.”

***

“No answer.”

The Commission requested U.S. importers if they would anticipate any changes in their

imports, U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of saccharin in the future if the antidumping

duty order was to be revoked. (Question II-12)

***

“If the antidumping duty order were to be revoked, there would be significant sales losses within a year.”

***

“If the antidumping duty on saccharin were revoked, we would expect to see an increase in saccharin

imports into the United States. Our firm and other similar firms would possibly have a better opportunity

to gain saccharin market share in the United States. This could, in turn, create more competition among

importers and drive down prices for end users and manufacturers, such as P&G, Colgate, Unilever, Abbot

Labs, Johnson & Johnson, and so on.”

***

“We would buy from China assuming a better value than we have today, and assuming comparable

quality.”

***

“No.”

***

“We would anticipate a large increase in imports from a large number of Chinese producers and

exporters. The price of Chinese saccharin would sharply decline and our company would cease importing

saccharin it was no longer profitable to trade in saccharin.”
D-8

***

“No.”

***

“Probably the Chinese producers other than Shanghai Fortune will become very aggressive to sell their

saccharin to USA. So, we will need to try to make Japanese and Indian materials compete against the

Chinese materials. The price for saccharin should go down. We have not discussed or determined what

we will do if the anti-dumping duty order is to be revoked.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“If the anti-dumping duty were to be revoked, product from China would flood the U.S. market and it will

probably be impossible to sell saccharin sourced from any other country. *** estimates that it’s saccharin

sales in the U.S. would disappear.”

***

“No.”

***

“A portion of our volume would be shifted back to China.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“***.” 

***

“No.”
D-9

***

“*** could lower inventories because sodium saccharin would become more available.”

***

“No.”

U.S. PURCHASERS COMMENTS

The Commission requested U.S. purchasers to describe the likely effects of any revocation

of the subject antidumping duty order on the future activities of their firm and the entire U.S.

market. (Questions III-35 (1) and III-35 (2)). The following are quotations from the responses of

purchasers:

(1) Effects on the activities of the firm

***

“We will experience some loss of business within a year from those companies that can use Chinese

quality material.”

***

“No Effect”

***

“We don’t purchase Chinese saccharin.”

***

“Price stability and availability in our industry it will make the U.S. competitive with the rest of the

world.”

***

“We will identify the supplier with the best total value (as selected by the criteria stated in III-27).”

***

“Don’t know.”

***

“None-- increase cost.”
D-10

***

“Firm may become more aggressive in the domestic purchases of saccharin.”

***

“Little to no input on buying decisions.”

***

“We do not have any plans to re-enter this market. But, the revocation of the antidumping will most likely

stabilize the market.”

***

“Significant price decline immediate.”

***

“None.”

***

“Not much would change.”

***

“We believe revocation of the antidumping order will result in a normalized, fair market for saccharin and

increasing availability, which would allow our firm to buy based on the fundamentals of quality, price

and service. This also would enable us to maintain our current levels of employment and would help

ensure the survival of the *** brand and the viability of our business model.

As previously discussed, our business cannot sustain the current extremely high levels of saccharin prices.

At a minimum, these prices will force us to increase our product prices on the shelf significantly, at a high

cost to consumers. This, in turn, could cause consumers switch to another brand of sweetener, which will

result in our company having to reduce the number of employees. As our answers to preceding questions

indicate, if current conditions continue, we will also be forced to consider switching to another type of

sweetener, which is a drastic measure that we could implement only with great difficulty, if at all.

*** employs *** workers in all and, at any given time, about *** of them are dedicated to the production

of ***. Revocation of the order would be an essential step toward ensuring that these workers remain

gainfully employed at a time when the national economy is experiencing great distress.”

(2)Effects on the entire U.S. market

*** 

“There may be a slight drop in price. However, high quality material will remain more expensive.”
D-11

***

“*** cannot comment on this, not having purchased saccharin since 2004.”

***

“Unknown.

***

“Make the U.S. competitive with the rest of the world.”

***

“More Chinese saccharine should become available to the U.S. market as suppliers other than Shanghai

Fortune are able to ship here.”

***

“Don’t know.”

***

“Reduce demand.”

***

“Price of saccharin will fall because supply of cheaper material to the market will affect market price.

This will happen as soon as duty is revoked and material not subject to duty enters marketplace.”

***

“Cost of saccharin will likely decrease slightly within 3 months after revocation.”

***

“It will stabilize the market.”

***

“Significant price decline immediate.” 

***

“None.”
D-12

***

“Prices will retreat towards historical US values and typical global market prices as compared to the

drastically higher prices in the US.”

*** 

“As previously indicated, we believe the revocation of the order will result in a normalized, fair market 

for saccharin.

In so doing, revocation would have no effect at all on domestic production of saccharin, as there are no

domestic producers of saccharin. Hence, revocation would have no effect on the level of employment in

the United States engaged in the production of saccharin. Revocation would have an effect only on the

relative competitive position of imports from different countries in the U.S. market. It would not have an

effect on the level of saccharin production in the United States. ***. The Commission’s determination in

this proceeding cannot reverse a decision that *** has already made.

A decision by the Commission to maintain the order under these circumstances would simply serve to

keep prices high and to maximize the profits made by foreign producers and imports, all at the expense of

U.S. companies like *** and at the expense of the ultimate consumer of saccharin-based products.

Nor would revocation of the order have any effect on the future of the domestic saccharin industry. It is

clear that there is, and will be, no such industry. ***.” 

FOREIGN PRODUCERS/EXPORTERS’ COMMENTS

The Commission requested foreign producers to indicate whether they anticipated any

changes in their operations or organization relating to the production of PET film in the future if

the antidumping duty order was to be revoked, and if yes, to describe those changes. (Question

II-4)

Tianjin Changjie

“***.”

The Commission requested foreign producers to identify export markets (other than the

United States) where they have developed or to which they have increased their sales of saccharin

as a result of the antidumping duty order. (Question II-13)

Tianjin Changjie

“***.” 
D-13

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering imports of saccharin in terms of their effect

on their firms’ production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United

States and other markets, and inventories. (Question II-14)

Tianjin Changjie

“***.”

The Commission asked foreign producers if they would anticipate any changes in their

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other

markets, or inventories in the future if the antidumping duty order was to be revoked. (Question

II-15)

Tianjin Changjie

“***.”

The Commission asked foreign producers to discuss any anticipated changes in terms of the

product range, product mix, or marketing of saccharin in their home markets, for export to the

United States, or for export to third-country markets in the future, identifying the time period(s)

involved and the factor(s) that they believe would be responsible for such changes. (Question

III-10)

Tianjin Changjie

“***.”