Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on sulfanilic acid from India pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of a domestic interested party and an inadequate response (in this case, no response) from respondent interested parties, the Department decided to conduct an expedited sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
September 7, 2005.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tipten Troidl or David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington; DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1767 or (101) 482-4136, respectively.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On May 2, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). The Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of National Ford Chemical Company (“NFC”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). NFC claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of sulfanilic acid.
The Department received a complete substantive response from NFC within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited review of this order.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the CVD order are all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid (sodium sulfanilate). The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry free flowing powders. Technical sulfanilic acid contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Sodium salt of sulfanilic acid (sodium sulfanilate) is a granular or crystalline material containing 75 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content. The merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 2921.42.22 and 29126.96.36.199. HTSUS subheadings for sulfanilic acid and sodium salts of sulfanilic acid have changed since the issuance of this order. The petitioner asserts that the HTSUS subheading for sulfanilic acid was 29188.8.131.52 in 1993 and has remained at 2921.42.22 since 1994. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Start Printed Page 53169Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 30, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
The Department determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rate listed below:
|Producers/Exporters||Net Countervailable Subsidy (percent)|
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction 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.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.Start Signature
Dated: August 30, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4857 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am]
Billing Code: 3510-DS-S