[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8424-8426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4509]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-830]


Coumarin From the People's Republic of China: Amended Order and 
Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation in Accordance 
With Decision Upon Remand

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amendment to final determination of antidumping duty 
investigation in accordance with decision upon remand.

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

SUMMARY: On May 9, 1996, the Court of International Trade (CIT) 
remanded to the Department of Commerce, International Trade 
Administration (the Department), one issue arising from the antidumping 
determination titled Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Coumarin From the People's Republic of China (59 FR 66895, 
December 28, 1994).
    Pursuant to the remand order, the Departmental filed its Remand 
Determination: Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 95-03-
00275, on September 23, 1996. Upon finding errors in the Remand 
Determination, the Department filed its Amended Remand Determination: 
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. United States on October 3, 1996 (the ``Amended 
Remand Results''). In

[[Page 8425]]

accordance with the remand order, the Department reconsidered its 
valuation of the by-products of coumarin production in light of the 
presence of impurities, recalculated the value of the by-products, and 
adjusted the subject PRC exporters' dumping margins accordingly. The 
Department applied best information available (BIA) in revaluing 
Tianjin Native Produce Import and Export Corporation's by-products 
because of the company's failure to provide information in response to 
the Department's remand questionnaire. After recalculation, the 
Department revised the final determination margins, as shown below.
    In plaintiff's comments to the Department's Amended Remand Results, 
filed October 7, 1996, Rhone-Polenc indicated its concurrence with said 
results and asked that they be affirmed by the CIT. The Cit affirmed 
and dismissed (Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., v. United States, Slip Op. 97-15 
(dated February 4, 1997).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 30, 1994, pursuant to the CIT's preliminary 
injunction dated July 7, 1995 (see ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
section).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger, Office 5, AD/CVD 
Enforcement II, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4136.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 28, 1994, the Department published its Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coumarin from the 
People's Republic of China (59 FR 66895). In its final determination, 
the Department calculated the foreign market value (FMV) for each 
exporter by valuing the factors of production according to the 
appropriate surrogate value, in accordance with Section 773(c)(2)-(4) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. In the LTFV investigation, the 
Department had offset the cost of manufacturing by the surrogate value 
of the by-products recovered, i.e., acetic acid, hydrochloric acid and 
alcohol, as adjusted (where appropriate) only for concentration levels. 
The CIT remanded the final determination to the Department for 
reconsideration of its valuation of the by-products for Changzhou, 
Jiangsu Native's supplier, and Tianjin Perfumery, Tiajin Native's 
supplier, to either take into account whether there were impurities, 
and their effect on value, or alternatively, to present valid reasons 
for the Department's failure to determine the effect of impurities on 
the value of the by-products.

Remand Results

    The Department set about requesting and obtaining information to 
determine whether there were impurities in the by-products in question. 
Both petitioner and Changzhou submitted information in this regard, but 
Tianjin Perfumery did not respond to a questionnaire or provide any 
other information for the remand proceeding. In addition, the 
Department obtained information concerning acetic acid from Chemical 
Business, an Indian publication used as the source for a number of 
surrogate values in the original proceeding and also consulted with 
chemical industry specialist at the International Trade Commission 
(ITC). In the LTFV investigation, the Department had valued by-product 
acetic acid as glacial acetic acid, which has a concentrated level of 
99% purity. However, for the remand, in comparing the chemical 
specification of glacial acetic acid provided by Chemical Business to 
the composition of Changzhou's recovered acetic acid, we found that 
Changzhou's recovered acetic acid was not glacial acetic acid. As a 
result, for the remand, the Department attempted to find a value from 
the surrogate country that best approximated the recovered acetic acid 
reported.

Acetic Acid

    For the remand, Changzhou provided the Department with the actual 
percentage of acetic acid (97%-98%) found in its recovered acetic acid 
resulting from its production of coumarin during the POI. Changzhou 
also indicated that it did not have any impurities in its recovered 
acidic acid. The Department was able to obtain additional information 
on Indian price data for recovered acetic acid at a concentration level 
comparable to Changzhou's actual recovered acetic acid. However, 
neither the Department nor the petitioner was able to obtain any 
information as to what impurities may also be present in the recovered 
acetic acid. The price quote was corroborated by the Department through 
the research performed by the U.S. Consulate General in Mumbai, India. 
It appeared that recovered acetic acid of 97-98% concentrate is not 
typically traded in India, but at least two Indian companies offered 
this product for sale. The Consulate General contacted the source of 
the July 1996 written price quote that petitioner had submitted for the 
remand and confirmed that this company offered 96%-98% recovered acetic 
acid at the price reported by petitioner. We determined that this price 
quote would take into account whatever impurities may exist. As a 
result, we revised our valuation of Changzhou's recovered acetic acid 
using this verified Indian price quote, after making adjustments.
    Our recalculation adjusted the tax-exclusive POI glacial acetic 
acid value, which the Department had obtained in the LTFV investigation 
from Chemical Weekly, an Indian industry publication, to reflect a 
recovered acetic acid value of 96-98% percent concentration. This 
adjustment was based on the percentage difference between the price 
levels of these two grades of acetic acid as observed in July 1996. The 
resulting POI surrogate value for this by-product factor more 
accurately reflects the actual concentration level of the Changzhou 
product as well as the price impact of any chemical impurities that 
might be present at that concentration level.

Hydrochloric Acid

    For the remand, Changzhou stated that there were no impurities in 
its recovered hydrochloric acid, apart from water. In consultation with 
the ITC, the Department determined that the presence of any alleged 
impurities (i.e. other than water) was insignificant and would not 
affect the value for Changzhou's recovered hydrochloric acid. Further, 
the Department determined that the water present in the hydrochloric 
acid only affected the value by establishing the concentration level. 
In our LTFV calculation, we had already reduced the surrogate value of 
Changzhou's recovered hydrochloric acid to account for its lower 
concentration level compared to standard commercial grades. However, 
for the remand, the Department also obtained additional information on 
the standard commercial grades of hydrochloric acid, ranging from 
petitioner's 31.45% grade to the 36% grade found in the The Merck Index 
which was used by the ITC chemists. These two grades fall within the 
range of standard commercial grades of 28% to 37% described in The 
Condensed Chemical Dictionary. In the LTFV investigation, we used the 
midpoint of this range, 32.5%, as the average commercial grade, and 
then adjusted the surrogate value for this by-product by the ratio of 
Changzhou's verified concentration level to the average commercial 
concentration. For these remand results, we found no basis to further 
adjust the surrogate value.
    Because Tianjin Perfumery did not respond to our questionnaire, we 
drew adverse inferences regarding the extent

[[Page 8426]]

to which impurities reduced the value of its recovered acetic acid. 
Therefore, as BIA, we discounted this value by 52%, the amount 
calculated by petitioner, based on the lowest price on the LTFV 
investigative record for recovered acetic acid of unknown 
specifications sold in India. Additionally, we had no information on 
the impurities present in Tianjin Perfumery's hydrochloric acid. As 
BIA, we drew the adverse inference that it contained impurities which 
reduced its value. We had no information on the record from which to 
quantify the effect of these impurities beyond the adjustment for the 
concentration percentage. However, the Department had verified that 
this by-product was sold, and not given away, to unrelated parties 
during the POI. Therefore, as BIA, we did not value hydrochloric acid 
at zero. Rather, for the remand, instead of using petitioner's price 
quote as BIA as we did in the final LTFV determination, we used price 
information from export statistics which was lower. Finally, since 
Tianjin Perfumery refused to provide information about the impurities 
present in its alcohol by-product, as BIA, we made the adverse 
inference that the effect of impurities is great enough to render 
negligible the value of the recoverable alcohol. Accordingly, we 
revised Tianjin Perfumery's FMV calculation by valuing the offset for 
the recovered alcohol as zero.
    On February 4, 1997, the CIT affirmed the remand results of the 
Department in the matter of: Coumarin from the People's Republic of 
China; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Rhone 
Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 95-03-00275 (May 9, 1996). As 
a result, the margins changed as listed below.

Suspension of Liquidation

    During the pendency of the court suit, on July 7, 1995, the Court 
of International Trade preliminarily enjoined liquidation on all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after July 30, 1994, the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation. 
Therefore, because no request for review was made in the anniversary 
month of the first review, and in accordance with 19 USC 1516a(e)(2), 
the Department will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate entries 
from July 30, 1994, up to and including February 29, 1996, the period 
of the first review, at the rates set forth below. Additionally, the 
Department will instruct the Customs Service to collect cash deposits 
at these same rates for entries of subject merchandise occurring on or 
after March 1, 1996.

Conclusion

    For the reasons stated above, we have re-calculated the LTFV 
margins as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Exporter                         Margin (percent)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiangsu Native Produce Import and Export    31.02.                      
 Corp.                                                                  
Tiangin Native Produce Import and Export    70.45.                      
 Corp.                                                                  
PRC-Wide Rate.............................  160.80                      
                                            (no change).                
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 18, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-4509 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M