[Federal Register: March 3, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9977-9980]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03mr03-42]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-821-818]
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions From the Russian Federation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Rivas or Tom Futtner, AD/CVD
[[Page 9978]]
Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0651, and (202) 482-3814, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Final Determination
We determine that urea ammonium nitrate solutions (UANS) from the
Russian Federation (Russia) are being sold, or are likely to be sold,
in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in
section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act). The
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the Final Determination
of Investigation section of this notice.
Case History
On October 3, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the
antidumping duty investigation of UANS from Russia. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Urea
Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Russian Federation, 67 FR 62008
(October 3, 2002) (Preliminary Determination). Since the preliminary
determination, the following events have occurred.
During October 2002, the Department conducted a verification of JSC
Nevinnomysskij Azot's (Nevinka's) sales and factors of production (FOP)
information. See Memorandum from Paige Rivas to the File,
``Verification of Sales and Factors of Production Information Reported
by Nevinnomysskij Azot,'' dated December 11, 2002.
On November 1, 2002, the petitioner \1\ filed a request for a
public hearing in this investigation. However, no hearing was held in
this investigation because the petitioner withdrew its request for a
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner in this investigation is the Nitrogen
Solutions Fair Trade Committee. Its members consist of CF
Industries, Inc., Mississippi Chemical Corporation, and Terra
Industries Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 7, 2002, the Department published a postponement of the
final determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty
investigation of UANS from Russia. See Postponement of the Final
Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations of Urea
Ammonium Nitrate Solutions From Belarus, the Russian Federation, and
Ukraine, 67 FR 67823 (November 7, 2002).
The petitioner, Nevinka, and JR Simplot filed surrogate value
information and data on November 26, 2002.
Parties filed case and rebuttal briefs on January 7 and January 14,
2002, respectively.
Continuation of Investigation
On February 19, 2003, the Department signed a suspension agreement
with Nevinka, JSC Kuybyshevazot/Togliatti, and S.P. Novolon/
Novomoskovsk. On February 20, 2003, we received a request from the
petitioner requesting that we continue the investigation. Pursuant to
this request, we have continued and completed the investigation in
accordance with section 734(g) of the Act. If the International Trade
Commission (ITC) determines that material injury exists, the Agreement
shall remain in force but the Department shall not issue an antidumping
order so long as (1) the Agreement remains in force, (2) the Agreement
continues to meet the requirements of subsections 734b(1) and (c) of
the Act, as appropriate and (3) the parties to the Agreement carry out
their obligations under the Agreement in accordance with its terms.
Scope of the Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is all
mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal
solution, regardless of nitrogen content by weight, and regardless of
the presence of additives, such as corrosion inhibitors. The
merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
number 3102.80.00.00. Although the HTSUS item number is provided for
convenience and U.S. Customs Service (the Customs Service) purposes,
the written description of the merchandise under investigation is
dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2001, through March
31, 2002.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum from Bernard T.
Carreau to Faryar Shirzad, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from
the Russian Federation,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Decision
Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a
complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on
file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main
Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://
ia.ita.doc.gov.
The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Non-Market Economy
The Department has treated Russia as a nonmarket economy (NME)
country in previous antidumping investigations (see e.g., Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel
Beams From the Russian Federation, 67 FR 35490 (May 20, 2002); Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure
Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347, (September 27,
2001); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products
From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510 (February 4, 2000)). In
accordance with section 771(18)(C) of the Act, any determination that a
foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked.
On June 6, 2002, the Department revoked Russia's NME status effective
April 1, 2002. Because the POI for this investigation precedes the
effective date of the market economy determination, this final
determination is based on information contained in the NME
questionnaire responses submitted by the respondent. Therefore,
pursuant to section 771(18)(C) of the Act, the Department has continued
to treat Russia as an NME country for the purposes of this
investigation.
Separate Rates
In our Preliminary Determination, we found that the only responding
company, Nevinka, met the criteria for the application of separate,
company-specific antidumping duty rates. We have not received any other
information since the preliminary determination which would warrant
reconsideration of our separate rates determination with respect to
this company. For a complete discussion of the Department's
determination that Nevinka is entitled to a separate rate, see the
Preliminary Determination.
The Russia-Wide Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that the use of a
Russia-wide rate was appropriate for other exporters in
[[Page 9979]]
Russia based on our presumption that those respondents who failed to
demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate constitute a single
enterprise under common control by the Russian government. Because we
have received no comments regarding our decision to apply the Russia-
wide rate to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except
for entries from Nevinka, we have continued to apply this rate in the
final determination. We also determined that, pursuant to section
776(a) of the Act, the Department is required to base the margin for
the Russia-wide entity on the facts available, because information
necessary to calculate this margin is not available on the record.
Further, we determined, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that
because the Russia-wide entity had failed to act to the best of its
ability by not responding to the Department's requests for information,
it was appropriate to use an adverse inference in selecting the facts
available. The Russia-wide rate applies to all entries of the
merchandise under investigation except for entries from Nevinka.
When analyzing the petition for purposes of the initiation, the
Department reviewed all of the data upon which the petitioner relied in
calculating the estimated dumping margin and determined that the margin
in the petition was appropriately calculated and supported by adequate
evidence, in accordance with the statutory requirements for initiation.
In order to corroborate the petition margin for purposes of using it as
adverse facts available, we examined the price and cost information
provided in the petition in the context of our preliminary
determination. For further details, see Memorandum from Paige Rivas to
Holly A. Kuga, ``Corroboration of Secondary Information,'' dated
September 26, 2002. We received no comments on this decision and
continue to find in this final determination that the rate contained in
the petition, as recalculated, has probative value.
Since the preliminary determination, we have revised several
surrogate values. In order to take into account these values, we have
recalculated the petition margin using, where possible, the revised
surrogate values. As a result of this recalculation, the Russia-wide
rate is, for the final determination, 239.14 percent. See Memorandum
from Paige Rivas to the File, ``Corroboration of Secondary
Information,'' dated February 21, 2003.
Surrogate Country
For purposes of the final determination, we continue to find that
Egypt remains the appropriate surrogate country for Russia. For further
discussion and analysis regarding the surrogate country selection for
Russia, see the Preliminary Determination.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by the respondent for use in our final
determination. We used standard verification procedures including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original
source documents provided by the respondents. For changes from the
Preliminary Determination as a result of verification, see the Changes
Since the Preliminary Determination section below.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our findings at verification and on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made adjustments to the calculation
methodologies used in the Preliminary Determination. These adjustments
are listed below and discussed in detail in the (1) Decision
Memorandum, (2) Memorandum from the Team to the File, ``Final Factors
of Production Valuation Memorandum,'' dated February 21, 2003, (Factors
Memorandum) and (3) Memorandum from the Team to the File, ``Calculation
Memorandum for the Final Determination,'' dated February 21, 2003
(Calculation Memorandum).
1. We accepted minor corrections to the FOP database presented at
verification. For our final calculations, we used the updated
consumption rates submitted by Nevinka at verification. See Calculation
Memorandum.
2. We calculated a surrogate value for water using the water
consumption rate for residential use for Egypt found on the
Department's Trade Information Center web page (http://www.trade.gov/
td/tic
), rather than including water in overhead as we did in the
preliminary determination. See Comment 5 of the Decision Memorandum.
3. We calculated a surrogate value for steam energy by converting
the energy content for steam, which is measured in gigacalories, to
kilowatt hours using the electricity surrogate value calculated in the
Preliminary Determination, rather than including it in overhead as was
done in the Preliminary Determination. See Comment 5 of the Decision
Memorandum.
4. In determining U.S. price, we calculated the market economy
freight expenses for inland freight for shipments of UANS to the port
of export. See Calculation Memorandum.
5. We revised the surrogate value for labor and are using the 2000
wage rate for Russia, as corrected on the Department's website in
February 2003. See Factors Memorandum.
6. We revised our calculation of freight costs for the FOP to
include the revised distances identified during verification. See
Calculation Memorandum.
7. We revised our calculation of the net U.S. price to not include
foreign inland freight for observations 7, 8, and 9. See Comment 4 of
the Decision Memorandum.
8. We revised our calculation of the net U.S. price to include
billing adjustments, where appropriate. See Comment 2 of the Decision
Memorandum.
9. We revised our calculation of surrogate financial ratios. See
Comment 6 of the Decision Memorandum.
Suspension of Liquidation
On February 19, 2003, the Department signed a suspension agreement
with Nevinka. Pursuant to that suspension agreement, we have instructed
Customs to terminate the suspension of liquidation of all entries of
UANS from Russia. Any cash deposits for entries of UANS from Russia
shall be refunded and any bonds shall be released. On February 20,
2003, we received a request from the petitioner that we continue the
investigation. Pursuant to this request, we have continued and
completed the investigation in accordance with section 734(g) of the
Act. We have found the following weighted-average dumping margins:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSC Nevinnomysskij Azot.................................... 106.98
Russia-Wide Rate........................................... 239.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Russia-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject
merchandise except for entries from Nevinka.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. Because our
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days,
determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that
material injury, or threat of material injury does not exist, the
Agreement will have no force or effect, and the investigation shall be
terminated. See
[[Page 9980]]
section 734(f)(3)(A) of the Act. If the ITC determines that such injury
does exist, the Agreement shall remain in force but the Department
shall not issue an antidumping order so long as (1) the Agreement
remains in force, (2) the Agreement continues to meet the requirements
of subsections (d) and (c)(l) of the Act, and (3) the parties to the
Agreement carry out their obligations under the Agreement in accordance
with its terms. See section 734(f)(3)(B) of the Act. This determination
is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order (APO)
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of
their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 21, 2003.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Continue to Value Natural
Gas Using the Price from Gas Producers to the Egyptian Government.
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Continue to Deny Billing
Adjustments.
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Consider Observation 16 to
be Within the POI.
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Reflect in its Final
Determination that Nevinka Did Not Pay Foreign Inland Freight Charges
for Observations 7 through 9.
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Continue to Treat
Catalysts, Water, and Water-based Inputs as Overhead Items.
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Calculate its Surrogate
Financial Ratios Based Upon One Egyptian Producer.
[FR Doc. 03-4927 Filed 2-28-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P