Unpublished Decision Memorandum
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A-570-898 AR 06/01/2007-05/31/2008 Public Document IA/NME Unit: JCM/BMP MEMORANDUM TO: Carole A. Showers Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration FROM: John M. Andersen Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations SUBJECT: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2007 – 2008 Administrative Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China SUMMARY: We have analyzed the case and rebuttal briefs of interested parties in the antidumping duty administrative review of chlorinated isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China. The period of review is June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008. As a result of our analysis, we have made changes, including corrections of certain inadvertent programming and clerical errors, in the margin calculation. We recommend that you approve the positions described in the “Discussion of the Issues” section of this memorandum. Below is the complete list of the issues for which we received comments and rebuttal comments by the parties: Surrogate Values Comment 1: Surrogate Value for Urea Comment 2: Surrogate Value for Steam Coal Comment 3: Financial Ratios Comment 4: Surrogate Value for Anhydrous Ammonia Company Specific Issues Comment 5: Clerical Error – By Product Offset LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS The Act Tariff Act of 1930, as amended AUV Average Unit Value Bihar Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Limited CAFC Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CIL Coal India Limited CIT Court of International Trade The Department Department of Commerce FOP Factors of Production IBM Indian Bureau of Mines ITC International Trade Commission Jiheng Hebei Jiheng Chemical Corporation, Ltd. Kanoria Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Limited MSFTI Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India NME Non-market Economy Petitioners Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation POR Period of Review PRC People’s Republic of China TERI Data Tata Energy Research Institute’s Energy Data Directory & Yearbook (2003/2004 edition) UHV Useful Heat Value VAT Value Added Tax WTA World Trade Atlas® Online (Indian import statistics) CASES AND LITIGATION CITES (Alphabetical by Short Cite) Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Barium Carbonate From the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 46577 (August 6, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Barium Carbonate from the PRC – 08/06/2003”) Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“CFSP from the PRC – 10/25/2007”) Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May 10, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Chlorinated Isos from the PRC – 05/10/2005”) Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 159 (January 2, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Chlorinated Isos from the PRC – 01/02/2008”) Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Chlorinated Isos from the PRC – 09/10/2008”) Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 14514 (March 31, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“CWCQSL Pipe from the PRC – 03/31/2009”) Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 2 Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“NPOTR Tires from the PRC – 05/15/2008”) Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Fish Fillets from Vietnam – 06/23/2003”) Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Second Administrative Review, 72 FR 13242 (March 21, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Fish Fillets from Vietnam – 03/21/2007”) Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 73 FR 15479 (March 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Fish Fillets from Vietnam – 03/24/2008”) Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Garlic from the PRC – 06/22/2007”) Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Thirteenth Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 29174 (June 19, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Garlic from the PRC – 06/19/2009”) Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 34448 (June 14, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Hot-Rolled Steel from Romania – 06/14/2005”) Synthetic Indigo from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 53711 (September 12, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Indigo from the PRC – 09/12/2003”) Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 74 FR 11085 (March 16, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Ironing Tables from the PRC – 03/16/2009”) Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Lined Paper from the PRC – 09/08/2006”) 3 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium from Ukraine, 60 FR 16432 (March 30, 1995), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Magnesium from Ukraine – 03/30/1995”) Magnesium Metal from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 40293 (July 14, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Magnesium Metal from the PRC – 07/14/2008”) Persulfates from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 6836 (February 9, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Persulfates from the PRC – 02/09/2005”) Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 27104 (June 8, 2009) (“Preliminary Results”) Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results if 2005/2006 New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 58641 (October 16, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Silicon Metal from the PRC – 10/16/2007”) Silicon Metal from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 32885 (July 9, 2009), unchanged in the Final Results (“Silicon Metal from the PRC – 07/09/2009”) Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Russian Federation, 68 FR 9977 (March 3, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“UANS from the Russian Federation – 03/03/2003”) Court Cites Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 1277 (CIT 1983) Arch Chemicals, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT, Slip. Op. 09-71 (“Arch v. United States”) China Nat’l Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (2003) Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 30 CIT 1412, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (CIT 2006) Hebei Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT 1185 (2004) Magnesium Corp. of America v. United States, 20 CIT 1092, 938 F. Supp. 885 (1996) aff’d 166 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Olympia Indus., Inc. v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 2d 997 (CIT 1998) 4 Rhodia, Inc. v. United States, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (CIT 2001) Rhodia, Inc. v. United States, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (CIT 2002) Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 20 CIT 573, 927 F. Supp. 451 (CIT 1996) Taiyuan Heavy Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 23 CIT 701 (1999) Tian Ziyang Food Company, Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT, Slip Op. 09-67 (June 29, 2009) BACKGROUND On June 8, 2009, the Department of Commerce published its preliminary results of review. See Preliminary Results. On June 29, 2009, Petitioners and Jiheng provided additional surrogate value information on the appropriate surrogate values to use as a means of valuing the factors of production. On July 8, 2009, Petitioners requested a hearing. On July 13, 2009, Petitioners filed a case brief.1 On July 20, 2009, respondent Jiheng filed a rebuttal brief.2 On July 27, 2009, Petitioners3 withdrew their request for a public hearing. On October 30, 2009, the Department placed additional surrogate value information on the record of this review for steam coal. On November 3, 2009, Jiheng submitted comments on the additional surrogate value information. DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES: I. Surrogate Values Comment 1: Surrogate Value for Urea Petitioners argue that the Department should use domestic price data from the Philippines to value urea in the final results. Petitioners contend that the Indian MSFTI data used in the Preliminary Results are not the “best available information” to value urea because the Government of India has preempted the operation of “market forces” in India with respect to urea.