The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to conduct full five-year sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders currently in place on solid urea imports from Russia and Ukraine.
This is the third five-year sunset review for solid urea imports from Russia and Ukraine. The process was initiated on Dec. 1, 2010 (GM Dec. 6, 2010), at which time the USITC announced it was accepting comments from interested parties and would evaluate those submissions to determine whether a full or an expedited review would take place. The order was previously continued on Jan. 5, 2006, following the second sunset review.
As a result of these votes, the USITC will now conduct full reviews to determine whether revocation of these orders would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic urea industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. The full review process includes a public hearing and the issuance of questionnaires to interested parties, or interveners, in the case.
The schedule for the urea review has not yet been formulated and it may not be for awhile, according to Peg O’Laughlin, USITC public affairs officer. O’Laughlin told Green Markets the length of a full review varies a great deal, but generally the USITC must complete it within 360 days. The schedule will be announced in a Federal Register notice when it is determined.
In past reviews, arguments in favor of keeping the antidumping duty orders in place have been submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen Producers (Committee), whose urea-producing members include CF Industries Inc. and PCS Nitrogen, a unit of Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc.
Agrium Inc. has also submitted comments as an intervener in past USITC actions involving solid urea imports from Russia and Ukraine.
PotashCorp told Green Markets that it is once again participating in this latest review, but had no other comment at this time. Agrium also said it had no comment on the review, and CF had not responded by press time.
The last sunset review in 2005 was contentious, resulting in an appeal of the USITC’s decision by Russian urea producers Nevinnomysskiy Azot, Novomoskovsk Azot JSC, JSC MCC Eurochem, Kuybyshevazot JSC, JSC “Azot” Berezniki, and JSC “Azot” Kemerovo.
The U.S. Court of International Trade, in response to the appeal, remanded the decision back to the USITC for reconsideration. The battle did not end until December 2007, when the USITC upheld the existing antidumping orders against Russia and Ukraine (GM Dec. 3, 2007).
The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) and other buying groups also weighed in during the last sunset review, arguing for an end to the antidumping duties because of changing market dynamics (GM Dec. 3, 2007).
Industry sources note that conditions have changed since 2005 the U.S. industry has continued to consolidate and is currently profitable, enjoying lower natural gas prices and good demand. By contrast, Ukraine now suffers from higher natural gas prices and has become a swing producer.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) first issued antidumping duty orders on imports of solid urea from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on July 14, 1987. After the USSR divided in December 1991, DOC split the order into 15 orders applicable to each independent state.
In 1999, the orders were continued only for Russia and Ukraine. Those have remained in place except for an exemption of MCC Eurochem, which in 2008 successfully achieved “new-shipper” status, and thereby avoided the 64.93 percent tariff placed on other Russian and Ukrainian producers (GM May 26, 2008).
The USITC also announced in March that it has initiated the second five-year sunset review of antidumping duties on ammonium nitrate imports from Ru