Saccharin from China - USITC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation ortermination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.” 69According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally willexceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.” 70Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in originalantidumping 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 ofimports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspendedinvestigation is terminated.” 71 It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injurydetermination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or thesuspension agreement under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order isrevoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding dutyabsorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4). 72 The statute further provides that the presence orabsence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisiveguidance with respect to the Commission’s determination. 73The Commission has complete data coverage for the domestic industry, i.e., PMC. On the otherhand, the Commission received a complete foreign producer questionnaire response from only one offive subject producers in China. 74 Accordingly, we have relied on the facts otherwise available whenappropriate in this review, which consist primarily of information from the original investigation,75 76information submitted in this five-year review, and information available from published sources.6919 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).70SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility ordifferentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domesticproducts, 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.7119 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).7219 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce has not made duty absorption findings with respect the order underreview. See, e.g., CR at I-13 at n.20.7319 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarilydispositive. SAA at 886.74See, e.g., CR at IV-8 and IV-11.7519 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching adetermination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or any otherperson withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time or in the form ormanner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. SeeTitanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctlyresponds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence beforeit, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”).76Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-yearreviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence asa whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied bythe participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and doesnot automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of thelevel of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factorsand may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makesdeterminations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic(continued...)12
B. Conditions of Competition and the Business CycleIn evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statutedirects the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the businesscycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” 771. Original InvestigationThe Commission discussed several conditions of competition relevant to its inquiry in itsoriginal determination. First, it noted that, pursuant to a study that found saccharin to be a cancercausingagent in rats, the FDA banned the use of saccharin in food and beverages in 1977. 78 Shortlythereafter, Congress lifted the ban, but subjected the sale of saccharin to certain requirements. 79 Inparticular, the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act, renewed through May 1997, mandated that healthwarning 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 theFDA approved saccharin for general use. 81 On December 21, 2000, President Clinton signed theSWEETEST Act, which removed the warning label on all products containing saccharin. 82Second, the Commission found that the large packaged-soft-drink manufacturers, such as CocaCola and Pepsi, switched from saccharin to aspartame in their products that were bottled for retail salein 1983, six years after the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act of 1977 requiring a warning label onproducts containing saccharin took effect. 83 However, because of the limited shelf life of aspartame, thelarge packaged-soft-drink manufacturers continued to use saccharin in beverages placed in dispensers,which did not require a warning label. 84Third, the Commission found that, since saccharin is an intermediate product that is used invarious consumer products and agricultural and industrial applications, overall U.S. demand forsaccharin is derived from the demand for the products that use it as an input. 85 The Commission notedthat 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 thatthere was little seasonality in the demand for saccharin in most uses. 8776(...continued)industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.7719 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).78Original Determination at 8.79Id.80Id.81Id.82Id.83Id.84Id.85Id. at 9.86Id.87Id.13
Page 1 and 2: Saccharin from ChinaInvestigation N
Page 3: U.S. International Trade Commission
Page 6 and 7: CONTENTSPagePart III: Condition of
Page 9 and 10: VIEWS OF THE COMMISSIONBased on the
Page 11 and 12: mouthwash. 14 By weight, it is abou
Page 13 and 14: statement challenging PMC’s statu
Page 15 and 16: Quantity and Type of Parts Sourced
Page 17: IV.LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RE
Page 21 and 22: . Supply in the U.S. MarketAs in th
Page 23 and 24: In the original determination, the
Page 25 and 26: significant volumes of saccharin to
Page 27 and 28: the domestic like product. 160 All
Page 29: period, increasing from *** percent
Page 32 and 33: injured or likely to be injured by
Page 34 and 35: Table I-1--ContinuedSaccharin: Summ
Page 36 and 37: Table I-2Saccharin: Administrative
Page 38 and 39: U.S. Tariff TreatmentImports of thi
Page 40 and 41: and monkeys, evidence strongly supp
Page 42 and 43: Channels of DistributionDuring the
Page 44 and 45: Table I-8Saccharin: U.S. shipments
Page 46 and 47: PMC sells saccharin ***, while mark
Page 48 and 49: The combined quantity of purchases
Page 50 and 51: Table II-5Saccharin: Interchangeabi
Page 52 and 53: adjusting supply in response to pri
Page 54 and 55: Changes in Character of Operations
Page 56 and 57: PMC further described its reenginee
Page 58 and 59: 2008, both of these forms of saccha
Page 61 and 62: PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, THE INDUSTRY
Page 63 and 64: Table IV-2Saccharin: U.S. importers
Page 65 and 66: The capacity, production, exports,
Page 67 and 68: In order to protect the sugar indus
Page 69 and 70:
Table IV-7Saccharin: Global exports
Page 71 and 72:
Trade BalancesTable IV-9 contains G
Page 73:
Information concerning exports of s
Page 76 and 77:
Figure V-1Exchange rates: Index of
Page 78 and 79:
Table V-3Saccharin: Weighted-averag
Page 81 and 82:
31504 Federal Register / Vol. 73, N
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
wilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES72
Page 89:
APPENDIX BCALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARIN
Page 92 and 93:
In Opposition to Continuation of th
Page 95:
Table C-1Saccharin: Summary data co
Page 99 and 100:
U.S. PRODUCERS COMMENTSThe Commissi
Page 101 and 102:
***“***.”***“No.”***“No.
Page 103 and 104:
DOC/ITC regulations. Their own prod
Page 105 and 106:
***“*** could lower inventories b
Page 107 and 108:
***“*** cannot comment on this, n
Page 109:
The Commission requested foreign pr
show all

Saccharin from China - USITC

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?