Battle lines are being drawn once again between domestic and foreign producers over solid urea imports into the U.S. from Russia. The U.S. Department of Commerce recently reported that it has initiated a “new-shipper review” of its antidumping duty order on solid urea from Russia, based on a request from Russian fertilizer producer MCC EuroChem.
Antidumping duties have been in place on solid urea from the former Soviet Union since 1987 to prevent material injury to the domestic industry because of urea imports being unfairly traded at less then fair market value. In 2005, the DOC reestablished the antidumping duty margins in its second five-year sunset review of urea imports from Russia, finding that the likelihood remained of “continued or recurring dumping at the rates established in the original investigation.”
The DOC said it received the new shipper review request from EuroChem on Jan. 25, 2007. In this and in subsequent certifications submitted by EuroChem, the Russian company said that it did not export solid urea to the U.S. during the period of investigation (POI). In addition, EuroChem certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any Russian exporter or producer who exported solid urea to the U.S. during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation.
EuroChem also submitted documentation establishing the date on which the company first shipped solid urea for export to the U.S., the date on which that product was first entered or withdrawn from the warehouse, the volume of the first shipment, and the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the U.S. The DOC said it conducted a query of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) database to confirm that EuroChem’s shipment of the subject merchandise had entered the U.S. for consumption and had been suspended for antidumping duties. The DOC also corroborated EuroChem’s assertion that it made no subsequent shipments to the U.S. by reviewing CBP data.
On Feb. 16, however, a group of fertilizer companies known as the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen Producers submitted a letter to the DOC arguing that EuroChem was not eligible for a new-shipper review because the producer of the subject merchandise to be reviewed, OJSC Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinka), was affiliated with the exporter and producers during the POI.
The Ad Hoc Committee also argued that the request was incomplete because EuroChem did not also file a certification from Nevinka certifying that it never shipped subject merchandise to the U.S. during the POI. The urea producing members of the Ad Hoc Committee include CF Industries Holdings Inc. and PCS Nitrogen Inc.
The DOC in late February concluded that EuroChem’s request “meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a new-shipper review for the shipment of solid urea from Russia that it produced and exported.” In a response to the Ad Hoc Committee’s petition, the DOC said it intends “to examine these arguments in greater detail during the course of the review and, if we determine that the producer of the subject merchandise subject to the review was indeed an affiliate of the exporter or producers in the original investigation, we may rescind the new-shipper review.”
DOC is looking at the period in 2006 from July 1 through Dec. 31 for its review, and said in a Feb. 27 Federal Register notice that interested parties requiring access to propriety information in the review may submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order. The DOC said it will issue the preliminary results of the review not later than 180 days from the date of its initiation, with the final results to be released no later than 270 days from the date of initiation.