Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Japan. Investigation No. 731-TA-461 (Third Review)

摘要

In 1990, over a period of several months, the Commission instituted separate investigations pertaining to imports of cement from Japan, Mexico, and Venezuela. On April 29, 1991, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being materially injured by reason of imports of cement from Japan that were being sold at less than fair value. In the original determination, the Commissioners who made affirmative determinations used the Southern California region for their analysis. Two of the three Commissioners who made affirmative determinations cumulated subject imports from Japan with imports from Mexico that were subject to a recent antidumping duty order. The Commissions determination was reviewed by the Court of International Trade, which remanded the pluralitys decision to use a cumulative analysis. On remand, the Commission made an affirmative determination with respect to the Southern California regional industry on a non-cumulated basis. The Court of International Trade affirmed. In 2000, the Commission conducted a full five-year review of the order on subject imports from Japan. The review was grouped with reviews on cement from Mexico and Venezuela. The Commission made an affirmative determination with respect to subject imports from Japan. It conducted a regional industry analysis, with the pertinent region defined as the State of California. It did not cumulate subject imports from Japan with imports from either of the other subject countries. The Commissions second review of the antidumping order on cement from Japan in 2006 was expedited. The Commission again used a regional industry analysis and defined the pertinent regional industry to encompass producers in the State of California. The Commission found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to the regional industry. The Commission instituted this third review on May 2, 2011. The sole response to the notice of institution was filed by a coalition of domestic interested parties (Domestic Interested Parties). The Commission found the responses of the individual Domestic Interested Parties adequate, found the domestic interested party group response adequate, and found the respondent interested party group response inadequate. In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party response or any other circumstances warranting a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review.