Saccharin from China - USITC

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSIONBased on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Actof 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports into theUnited States of saccharin from the People’s Republic of China (“China”) would be likely to lead tocontinuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonablyforeseeable time.I. BACKGROUNDIn June 2003, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materiallyinjured by reason of less than fair value imports (“LTFV”) of saccharin from China. 1 2 Subsequently, theU.S. Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of saccharin from China. 3The Commission’s original determination was not appealed.The Commission instituted this five-year review on June 2, 2008. 4 The Commission received aresponse to the notice of institution from PMC Specialties Group, Inc. (“PMC”), the sole domesticsaccharin producer, and also one of the primary importers of subject merchandise during the reviewperiod. 5 The Commission received one respondent interested party response to the notice of institutionfrom Rit-Chem Co., Inc. (“Rit-Chem”), an importer of the subject merchandise during the originalinvestigation. The Commission, on September 5, 2008, found that domestic producer PMC’s individualresponse was adequate, and that the domestic interested party group response was adequate. TheCommission determined that the respondent interested party group response to the notice of institutionwas inadequate because it did not receive a response to the notice of institution from any Chinese subjectproducer. 6 However, the Commission found that changes in the conditions of competition warrantedconducting a full review. 7PMC filed prehearing and posthearing briefs, presented witnesses at the hearing, and submittedfinal comments. Mr. Dennis Delaney, sales manager at TR International, Inc. (“TR International”), achemical trading company based in Seattle, testified at the hearing on behalf of Chinese subject producerTianjin Changjie Chemical Company (“Tianjin Changjie”). 8 Although not a party to this review, ***1Saccharin from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1013 (Final), USITC Pub. 3606 (June 2003) (“OriginalDetermination”). All citations are to the confidential version of the Original Determination.2The Commission has conducted investigations of saccharin on two previous occasions. In the 1977investigations, conducted under the Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended, the Commission reached negativedeterminations. See Saccharin from Japan and the Republic of Korea, Inv. Nos. AA1921-174 & 175, USITC Pub.846 (Dec. 1977). In the 1993-94 investigation, the Commission also reached a negative determination. SeeSaccharin from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-675 (Final), USITC Pub. 2842 (Dec. 1994).368 Fed. Reg. 40906 (July 9, 2003).473 Fed. Reg. 31504 (June 2, 2008).5See e.g., CR/PR at IV-1.6Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson determined that the respondent interested party group response was adequate.7In the Commmission’s explanation on adequacy, it determined that because PMC was the sole domesticproducer and the primary importer of subject product in 2007, changes in the conditions of competition warrantedconducting a full review. 73 Fed. Reg. 53444 (Sept. 16, 2008).8We note that subject producer Tianjin Changie did not enter an appearance in this five-year review. We alsonote that Tianjin Changjie submitted a letter to the Commission dated March 23, 2009, seeking revocation of theorder at issue in this five-year review.3