Saccharin from China - USITC

injured or likely to be injured by reason of LTFV imports from Japan and Korea. 3 In the 1993-94investigations, involving China and Korea, Commerce determined that there were no sales at LTFV ofsaccharin from Korea and the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was notmaterially injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the UnitedStates was not materially retarded, by reason of LTFV imports of saccharin from China. 4In July 2002, the U.S. saccharin industry filed for relief from alleged LTFV imports of saccharinfrom China. 5 The Commission published its affirmative final determination on imports of saccharin fromChina in June 2003. An antidumping duty order covering imports of saccharin from China was issued inJuly 2003. 6 7 8 On June 2, 2008, Commerce and the Commission initiated the current five-year “sunset”review of the antidumping duty order on China. 9Summary DataTable I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigation and from this review.3Saccharin from Japan and the Republic of Korea, Investigations No. AA1921-174 and 175, USITC Pub. 846,December 1977. Sherwin-Williams Co. (whose saccharin production unit was subsequently purchased by PMC, thepetitioner in the 2002 investigation) filed the complaint which led to these investigations.4Saccharin from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-675 (Final), USITC Pub. 2824, December 1994. PMC wasthe petitioner in these investigations.5PMC was the petitioner.668 FR 40906, July 9, 2003.7On April 10, 2006, in response to a request by PMC on June 7, 2005, and initated by Commerce on October 26,2005, Commerce issued a preliminary scope ruling that insoluble (acid) saccharin from China, converted in Israelinto any other form of saccharin, is within the scope of the antidumping duty order covering saccharin from China.On September 29, 2006, PMC withdrew its request for a scope clarification, and request that Commerce terminate orrescind the scope inquiry. When asked at the hearing why PMC withdrew this request, PMC’s response was that it“just decided that it needed to place its efforts and money to engineer our process instead of diluting our efforts andmoney to pursue that case.” (Transcript, p. 50 (Bouligaraki)).8On May 13, 2008, the Commission received a changed circumstances review request from Cumberland PackingCorp. (“Cumberland”), a domestic user of saccharin and Helm New York, Inc. (“Helm”), an importer of record,citing cessation of PMC saccharin production mid-2006 and an alleged joint venture among PMC and twosubstantial producers of saccharin in China. (Request for changed Circumstances Review and Revocation ofAntidumping Duty Order Issued in Saccharin From the People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed. Reg. 40906 (July 8,2003). On June 2, 2008, this request was withdrawn. ***. (Cumberland’s purchasers’ questionnaire response,section II-3b.)973 FR 31504, June 2, 2008, and 73 FR 31974, June 5, 2008, respectively. On September 5, 2008, theCommission determined to conduct a full review. 73 FR 53444, September 16, 2008.I-2