81 FR 13327 - Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 49 (March 14, 2016)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 49 (March 14, 2016)
| Page Range | 13327-13330 | |
| FR Document | 2016-05710 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 13327-13330] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-05710] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-861] Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET resin) from India are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Determination Margins.'' DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482- 2924 or (202) 482-0649. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [[Page 13328]] Background On October 15, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation of PET resin from India.\1\ The events occurring since the Preliminary Determination was issued are addressed in detail in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\2\ The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 80 FR 62029 (October 15, 2015) (Preliminary Determination). \2\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (PET) Resin from India (Issues and Decision Memorandum),'' dated concurrently with this notice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now March 4, 2016.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,'' dated January 27, 2016. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Period of Investigation The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is certain PET resin from India. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I to this notice. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, and which is hereby adopted by this notice.\4\ A list of the issues raised and to which the Department responded is attached to this notice as Appendix II. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to the Margin Calculations Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to Ester's and Reliance's margin calculations in the Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and AFA In the preliminary determination, we stated that because the mandatory respondents Dhunseri Petrochem, Limited (Dhunseri) and JBF Industries, Limited (JBF) failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we preliminarily determined to apply facts otherwise available with an adverse inference to these respondents pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.\5\ Pursuant to section 776 of the Act, the Department continues to find it appropriate to base Dhunseri and JBF's rate on AFA. In applying AFA, we are assigning Dhunseri and JBF the highest margin identified in the petition, 19.41 percent. See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh to Paul Piquado, ``Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India,'' dated October 6, 2015, at 14. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Final Determination Margins The Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Weighted- average Exporter or producer dumping margin (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dhunseri Petrochem, Ltd.................................... 19.41 Ester Industries, Ltd...................................... 14.23 JBF Industries, Ltd........................................ 19.41 Reliance Industries, Ltd................................... 8.03 All-Others................................................. 11.13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated ``all- others'' rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for mandatory respondents Ester and Reliance that are above de minimis and which are not based on section 776 of the Act. However, because there are only two relevant weighted-average dumping margins for this final determination, using a weighted-average of these two rates risks disclosure of business proprietary data. Therefore, the Department assigned a margin to the all-others rate companies based on the simple average of the two mandatory respondents' rates,\6\ less an adjustment for the export subsidies identified in the companion countervailing duty investigation.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ With two respondents, we would normally calculate (A) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. We would compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other companies. See, Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed- Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010). As complete publicly ranged sales data was unavailable, we based the all-others rate on a simple average of the two calculated margins. See, e.g., Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 9204 (February 16, 2012), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 77 FR 40857, 40858 (July 11, 2012). \7\ See section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Unlike in administrative reviews, the Department calculates the adjustment for export subsidies in investigations not in the margin calculation program, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to CBP. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 13329]] Disclosure We will disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that, based on respondents' reported shipment volumes, there was reason to believe or suspect that critical circumstances existed for imports of subject merchandise from India from Ester and Reliance. Furthermore, we drew an adverse inference with respect to Dhunseri and JBF, both of which are mandatory respondents that failed to respond to our requests for information, and thereby determined that critical circumstances existed with respect to them also. Finally, based on data from the ITC Dataweb, we found that there were critical circumstances with respect to those Indian shippers which were not selected for individual examination.\8\ We received one comment on the Department's preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances, and have addressed the comment in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. It did not cause us to change our preliminary determination. Therefore, pursuant to section 735(a)(3) of the Act, we continue to determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of PET resin from India from all parties. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR at 62030, and accompanying Preliminary Issues and Decision Memorandum at 18. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain PET resin from India which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 17, 2015, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination. We also will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for Dhunseri, Ester, JBF, and Reliance will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be 11.13 percent. Consistent with our practice,\9\ where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent CVD investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.\10\ Therefore, in the event that a CVD order is issued and suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion CVD investigation on PET resin from India, the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted for export subsidies, as appropriate, found in the final determination of the companion CVD investigation. Specifically, for cash deposit purposes, we will subtract from the applicable cash deposit rate that portion of the CVD rate attributable to the export subsidies found in the final affirmative countervailing duty determination for each respondent (i.e., 5.10 percent for Dhunseri, Ester, Reliance, and ``all-others,'' and 37.08 for JBF.) \11\ After this adjustment, the resulting cash deposit rates will be 14.31 percent for Dhunseri, 9.13 percent for Ester, 2.93 percent for Reliance, 00.00 percent for JBF, and 6.03 for ``all-others.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ The Department terminated the suspension of liquidation associated with the CVD investigation effective December 12, 2015. See CBP message no. 5348309 dated December 14, 2015. Therefore, until and unless suspension of liquidation is resumed, we will not adjust the antidumping cash deposit rate for collection of duties associated with export subsidies. \10\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From the Republic of Korea, 77 FR 17413 (March 26, 2012). \11\ See the Memorandum to the File, through Robert James, Program Manager, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, from Fred Baker, Analyst, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, ``Export Subsidies Calculated in the Countervailing Duty Final Determination of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India,'' dated March 4, 2016. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice will serve as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the 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 this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 4, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance. Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 0.70, but not more than 0.88, deciliters per gram. The scope includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above specifications regardless of additives introduced in the manufacturing process. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Appendix II--List of Topics in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope of the Investigation [[Page 13330]] V. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VI. Use of Adverse Facts Available VII. Discussion of Interested Party Comments Comment 1: Whether Critical Circumstances Exist Comment 2: Whether Ester Should Be a Mandatory Respondent in This Investigation Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Recalculate Imputed Credit Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Recalculate Home Market Inland Freight Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Make a Duty Drawback Adjustment Comment 6: Whether to Adjust Ester's G&A Ratio Comment 7: Whether to Adjust Ester's Financial Expense Ratio Comment 8: Whether to Include Import Taxes in the Total Cost of Manufacture Comment 9: Whether to Rely on Ester's Revised Packing Costs Comment 10: Whether to Revise Reliance's COP Using Reliance's Verified Actual Chain Costs Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Use its Differential Pricing Analysis in the Final Determination Comment 12: Whether to Use Invoice Date as the Date of Sale in Both Markets Comment 13: Whether to Resort to Adverse Facts Available for Reliance A. Whether Reliance Failed to Submit All Home Market Sales Subject to the Investigation B. Whether Reliance Provided a Complete Home Market Sales Listing for Contract Customers C. Whether Reliance Reported the Wrong Date as the Sale Date for U.S. Sales D. Whether Reliance Wrongly Submitted a Claim for a Duty Drawback Adjustment E. Whether Reliance Wrongly Submitted a Claim for an Adjustment for the Focus Product Scheme F. Whether the Department Failed to Verify Export Warranty Expenses G. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Included Third-Country Sales in its Home Market Sales Listing H. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Included Free Samples in its Home Market Sales Listing I. Whether Reliance Knowingly Withheld its U.S. and Home Market Short-Term Interest Rates J. Whether Reliance Failed to Accurately Provide Its U.S. and Home Market Selling Functions K. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Offset General and Administrative Expenses L. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available Comment 14: Proper AFA Rate VIII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2016-05710 Filed 3-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Notices 13327
Methodology results of its analysis of the issues raised review period. Failure to comply with
The Department is conducting this in any written briefs, not later than 120 this requirement could result in the
review in accordance with section days after the date of publication of this Department’s presumption that
751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) reimbursement of antidumping duties
amended (‘‘the Act’’). For a full of the Act. occurred and the subsequent assessment
description of the methodology Assessment Rates of double antidumping duties.
underlying our conclusions, see the We are issuing and publishing these
Upon issuance of the final results, the results in accordance with sections
Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Department will determine, and U.S. 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
Preliminary Results of Review Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) CFR 351.213.
The Department preliminarily shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this Dated: March 7, 2016.
determines that Shanghai Jinneng and
review.6 The Department intends to Paul Piquado,
Shanghai Jinfeng are part of the PRC-
wide entity. No review has been issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
days after the publication date of the Compliance.
requested for the PRC-wide entity. The
PRC-wide rate is 139.49 percent. final results of this review. The Appendix
Department intends to instruct CBP to
Public Comment liquidate entries of subject merchandise List of Sections in the Preliminary Decision
from Shanghai Jinneng and Shanghai Memorandum
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results and Jinfeng, at 139.49 percent (the PRC-wide Summary
may submit case briefs and/or written rate). For a full discussion of this Background
practice, see Non-Market Economy Scope of the Order
comments, filed electronically using
Discussion of the Methodology
ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment
Non-Market Economy Country Status
publication of this notice, pursuant to of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 PRC-Wide Entity
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).4 Rebuttal (October 24, 2011). Recommendation
briefs, limited to issues raised in the Cash Deposit Requirements [FR Doc. 2016–05688 Filed 3–11–16; 8:45 am]
case briefs, will be due five days after
the due date for case briefs, pursuant to The following cash deposit BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit requirements will be effective upon
case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
are requested to submit with each
argument a statement of the issue, a of the subject merchandise entered, or International Trade Administration
summary of the argument not to exceed withdrawn from warehouse, for
five pages, and a table of statutes, consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of review, as [A–533–861]
regulations, and cases cited, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), Act: (1) For previously investigated or
Resin From India: Final Determination
interested parties, who wish to request reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
a hearing must submit a written request which are not under review in this
Final Affirmative Determination of
to the Assistant Secretary for segment of the proceeding but which
Critical Circumstances
Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. have separate rates, the cash deposit rate
Department of Commerce, filed will continue to be the exporter-specific AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
electronically using ACCESS. rate published for the most recent International Trade Administration,
Electronically filed case briefs/written period; (2) for all PRC exporters of Department of Commerce.
comments and hearing requests must be subject merchandise that have not been
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
received successfully in their entirety by found to be entitled to a separate rate,
(the Department) determines that
the Department’s electronic records including Shanghai Jinneng and
imports of certain polyethylene
system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Shanghai Jinfeng, the cash deposit rate
terephthalate resin (PET resin) from
Standard Time, within 30 days after the will be the PRC-wide entity rate of
India are being sold in the United States
date of publication of this notice.5 139.49 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC
at less than fair value (LTFV), as
Hearing requests should contain: (1) The exporters of subject merchandise which
provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act
party’s name, address and telephone have not received their own rate, the
of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final
number; (2) the number of participants; cash deposit rate will be the rate
weighted-average dumping margins of
and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that
sales at LTFV are listed below in the
Issues raised in the hearing will be supplied that non-PRC exporter. These
section entitled ‘‘Final Determination
limited to those issues raised in the deposit requirements, when imposed,
Margins.’’
respective case briefs. If a request for a shall remain in effect until further
hearing is made, parties will be notified notice. DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2016.
of the time and date of the hearing Notification to Importers FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred
which will be held at the U.S. Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD
Department of Commerce, 1401 This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington Compliance, International Trade
DC 20230. The Department intends to their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate Administration, U.S. Department of
issue the final results of this Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
administrative review, including the regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
4 See also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing of the relevant entries during this telephone: (202) 482–2924 or (202) 482–
requirements).
0649.
5 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 6 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:27 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_13376/page/1.svg)
![13330 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Notices
V. Changes Since the Preliminary DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal
Determination or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more
VI. Use of Adverse Facts Available International Trade Administration and of a width which exceeds 150 mm
VII. Discussion of Interested Party Comments and measures at least twice the
[C–580–837]
Comment 1: Whether Critical thickness, and which are cut-to-length
Circumstances Exist Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality (not in coils).2
Comment 2: Whether Ester Should Be a Steel Plate From the Republic of The merchandise subject to the Order
Mandatory Respondent in This Korea: Preliminary Results of is currently classifiable in the HTSUS
Investigation under subheadings: 7208.40.3030,
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Comment 3: Whether the Department 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,
Review and New Shipper Review;
Should Recalculate Imputed Credit 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060,
Calendar Year 2014
Comment 4: Whether the Department
7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,
Should Recalculate Home Market Inland AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,
Freight International Trade Administration, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,
Comment 5: Whether the Department Department of Commerce. 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,
Should Make a Duty Drawback SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,
Adjustment (the Department) is conducting an 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,
Comment 6: Whether to Adjust Ester’s G&A administrative review and new shipper
Ratio
7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000,
review (NSR) of the countervailing duty 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090,
Comment 7: Whether to Adjust Ester’s
(CVD) order on certain cut-to-length 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000,
Financial Expense Ratio
carbon-quality steel plate from the 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. While
Comment 8: Whether to Include Import
Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of HTSUS subheadings are provided for
Taxes in the Total Cost of Manufacture
review (POR) for the CVD review and convenience and customs purposes, the
Comment 9: Whether to Rely on Ester’s
the NSR is January 1, 2014, through written description of the scope of this
Revised Packing Costs
December 31, 2014. The Department Order is dispositive.3
Comment 10: Whether to Revise Reliance’s
COP Using Reliance’s Verified Actual
preliminary determines that Dongkuk
Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), the firm Methodology
Chain Costs
Comment 11: Whether the Department examined in the administrative review, The Department conducted this
Should Use its Differential Pricing and Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai review in accordance with section
Analysis in the Final Determination Steel), the firm examined in the NSR, 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
Comment 12: Whether to Use Invoice Date each received a de minimis net subsidy amended (the Act).4 For a full
as the Date of Sale in Both Markets rate during the POR. Interested parties description of the methodology
Comment 13: Whether to Resort to Adverse are invited to comment on these underlying our conclusions, see the
Facts Available for Reliance preliminary results. accompanying Preliminary Decision
A. Whether Reliance Failed to Submit All DATES: Effective March 14, 2016. Memorandum, dated concurrently with
Home Market Sales Subject to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John these results and hereby adopted by this
Investigation Conniff (for Hyundai Steel) or Jolanta notice. The Preliminary Decision
B. Whether Reliance Provided a Complete Lawska (for DSM), AD/CVD Operations, Memorandum is a public document and
Home Market Sales Listing for Contract Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, is on file electronically via Enforcement
Customers International Trade Administration, and Compliance’s Antidumping and
C. Whether Reliance Reported the Wrong U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Countervailing Duty Centralized
Date as the Sale Date for U.S. Sales Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
D. Whether Reliance Wrongly Submitted a Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) ACCESS is available to registered users
Claim for a Duty Drawback Adjustment 482–1009 and (202) 482–8362, at http://access.trade.gov and in the
E. Whether Reliance Wrongly Submitted a respectively. Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of
Claim for an Adjustment for the Focus the main Department of Commerce
Product Scheme Scope of the Order building. In addition, a complete
F. Whether the Department Failed to Verify The merchandise covered by the version of the Preliminary Decision
Export Warranty Expenses Order 1 is certain hot-rolled carbon- Memorandum can be accessed directly
G. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Included quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates on the Internet at http://
Third-Country Sales in its Home Market (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed
Sales Listing faces or in a closed box pass, of a width Preliminary Decision Memorandum and
H. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Included the electronic version of the Preliminary
exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding
Free Samples in its Home Market Sales
1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual
Listing
thickness of not less than 4 mm, which 2 See ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary
I. Whether Reliance Knowingly Withheld Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative
are cut-to-length (not in coils) and
its U.S. and Home Market Short-Term Review and New Shipper Review, and the
without patterns in relief), of iron or Preliminary Intent to Rescind in Part: Certain Cut-
Interest Rates
non-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat- to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the
J. Whether Reliance Failed to Accurately
Republic of Korea,’’ from Chris Marsh, Deputy
Provide Its U.S. and Home Market 1 See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Selling Functions Plate from India, Indonesia, and the Republic of Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
K. Whether Reliance Incorrectly Offset Korea: Continuation of Antidumping and Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
General and Administrative Expenses Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 264 (January 4, Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice
2012) (the Order); see also Notice of Amended Final (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) for a complete
L. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available description of the scope of the Order.
Determination: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–
Comment 14: Proper AFA Rate Quality Steel Plate From India and the Republic of 3 See Order.
VIII. Recommendation Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: 4 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act
[FR Doc. 2016–05710 Filed 3–11–16; 8:45 am] Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality Steel Plate regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E)
From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, and the of the Act regarding benefit; and, section 771(5A)
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6587 (February 10, 2000). of the Act regarding specificity.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:27 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_13376/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-03-12 01:00:56
Document Modified: 2016-03-12 01:00:56
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Contact | Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482- 2924 or (202) 482-0649. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 13327 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR