Antidumping: Expandable polystyrene resins from— Indonesia and Korea,

Text

---

Federal Register: December 20, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 243)NoticesPage 71112-71114From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

DOCID:fr20de99-53

[Page 71112]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-560-810, A-580-843Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Expandable Polystyrene Resins from Indonesia and the Republic of Korea

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Ellis or Charles Riggle at (202) 482-2336 and (202) 482-0650, respectively; Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

The Petitions

On November 22, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') received petitions on certain expandable polystyrene resins (``EPS'') from Indonesia and the Republic of Korea (``Korea'') filedin proper form by BASF Corporation, Huntsman Expandable Polymers Company LC, Nova Chemicals Inc., and Styrochem U.S., Ltd., (collectively ``the petitioners''). On December 1 and 3, 1999, the Department received amendments to the petitions.

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners allege that imports of EPS from the above-mentioned countries are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring an industry in the United States.

The Department finds that the petitioners filedthese petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to each of the antidumping investigations they are requesting the Department to initiate (see Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions, below).

Scope of Investigations

The scope of these investigations includes certain expandable polystyrene resins in primary forms; namely, raw material or resin manufactured in the form of polystyrene beads, whether of regular (shape) type or modified (block) type, regardless of specification, having a weighted-average molecular weight of between 160,000 and 260,000, containing from 3 to 7 percent blowing agents, and having bead sizes ranging from 0.4 mm to 3 mm.

Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations is off-grade, off-specification expandable polystyrene resins.

The covered merchandise is found in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3903.11.00.00. Although this HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (62 FR 27323), we are setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments by January 12, 2000. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filedon behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 percent of total production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''), which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to the law.<SUP>1</SUP>

\1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays and Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380- 81 (July 16, 1991).

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. Moreover, the petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.

In this case, there is one domestic like product, which is defined in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section, above. The Department has no basis on the record to find the petitioners' definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. No comments were received on this issue. The Department, therefore, has adopted the domestic like product definition set forth in the petitions.

Moreover, the Department has determined that the petitions (and subsequent amendments) contain adequate evidence of industry support; therefore, polling is unnecessary (see Attachments to Initiation Checklist, Re: Industry Support, December 13, 1999). To the best of the Department's knowledge, the producers who support the petition account for more than 50

[Page 71113]percent of the production of the domestic like product. Additionally, no person who would qualify as an interested party pursuant to section 771(9)(A), (C), (D), (E) or (F) of the Act has expressed opposition on the record to the petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that this petition is filedon behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department's decision to initiate these investigations is based.

The petitioners, in determining normal value (``NV'') for Indonesia and Korea relied upon price data contained in confidential market research reports filedwith the Department. At our request, the petitioners arranged for the Department to contact the author of the reports to verify the accuracy of the data, the methodology used to collect the data, and the credentials of those gathering the market research. The Department's discussions with the author of the market research reports are summarized in Memorandum to the File: Telephone Conversation with Market Research Firm dated December 3, 1999. For a more detailed discussion of the deductions and adjustments relating to home market price, U.S. price and factors of production and sources of data for each country named in the petition, see Initiation Checklist, dated December 13, 1999. Should the need arise to use, as facts available under section 776 of the Act, any of this information in our preliminary or final determinations, we may re-examine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate. Indonesia

The petitioners identified PT Risjad Brasali Styrindo, PT Polychem Lindo, Inc., and PT Maspion Polystyrene as producers and exporters of EPS to the United States. For EPS from Indonesia, the petitioners based EP on the average unit value (``AUV'') of the merchandise as derived from the U.S. government's IM-145 data. The petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting from the AUV estimated costs for foreign inland freight derived from data contained in the confidential market research report.

NV is based upon prices for products which are identical to the products used as the basis for the U.S. price. The petitioners calculated NV by deducting foreign movement charges and domestic packing expenses, and adding U.S. packing expenses. The petitioners did not adjust normal value for differences in credit expenses because in the Indonesian market, the terms and conditions of domestic transactions were ``cash in advance.'' The estimated dumping margins for EPS from Indonesia range from 94.93 to 96.65 percent. Korea

The petitioners identified Kumho Chemicals Co., Ltd.; LG Chemical, Ltd., Dongbu Hannong Chemical Co., Shin Ho Petrochemical Co., Ltd., Cheil Industries, Inc., and BASF Styrenics Korea, Ltd. as producers and exporters of EPS to the United States. For EPS from Korea, the petitioners based EP either on the AUV of the merchandise as derived from the U.S. government's IM-145 data or on actual invoices to U.S. customers and supporting affidavits from U.S. salespersons. They also relied on data contained in the confidential market research report regarding adjustments and deductions.

For comparisons using actual invoices and affidavits, the petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting estimated costs for selling agent commissions, U.S. inland freight, port charges, international shipping charges, customs duties, and foreign inland freight. For AUV comparisons, the petitioners deducted foreign market inland freight.

NV is based upon prices for products which are identical to the products used as the basis for the U.S. price. The petitioners calculated NV by deducting foreign movement charges and domestic packing expenses, and adding U.S. packing expenses. The petitioners also adjusted normal value for differences in credit expenses. The estimated dumping margins for EPS from Korea ranged from 43.79 to 89.39 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of EPS from Indonesia and Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

The petitions allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like products is being materially injured, and is threatened with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. The petitioners explained that the industry's injured condition is evident in the declining trends in (1) U.S. market share, (2) average unit sales values, (3) share of domestic consumption, (4) operating income, (5) sales, and (6) capacity utilization.

The allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Bureau of the Census import data, lost sales, and pricing information. While the petitioners did not submit information on other injurious trends such as a decline in employment, hours worked and wages paid, the Department assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation and determined that these allegations are supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation (see Attachments to Initiation Checklist, Re: Material Injury, December 13, 1999).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

Based upon our examination of the petitions on EPS from Indonesia and Korea, we find that the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of EPS from Indonesia and Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless this deadline is extended, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of each petition has been provided to the representatives of Indonesia and Korea. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public versions of each petition to each exporter named in the petition, as appropriate.

ITC Notification

We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine, by no later than January 6, 2000, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of certain expandable polystyrene resins from Indonesia and Korea are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

[Page 71114]

Dated: December 13, 1999. Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

FR Doc. 99-32917Filed12-17-99; 8:45 amBILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

---