81 FR 91118 - Stainless Steel Bar From India: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 242 (December 16, 2016)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 242 (December 16, 2016)
| Page Range | 91118-91120 | |
| FR Document | 2016-30323 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 91118-91120] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-30323] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-810] Stainless Steel Bar From India: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India to determine whether to reinstate the order with respect to Viraj Prof[igrave]les Ltd. (Viraj) and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates Hindustan Inox, Precision Metals and Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (collectively, Venus). DATES: Effective December 16, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0410. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 21, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty (AD) order on SSB from India.\1\ On September 14, 2004, the Department conditionally revoked the Order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (collectively, Viraj, and now known as Viraj Profiles Limited \2\), based on a finding of three years of no dumping.\3\ On September 13, 2011, the Department conditionally revoked the Order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Venus, based on a finding of three years of no dumping.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995) (Order). \2\ In July 2006, Viraj Forgings Ltd. merged with Viraj Alloys Ltd.; in April 2007, Viraj Alloys and Viraj Impoexpo Ltd. merged into Viraj Profiles Ltd. See Letter from the petitioners, ``Stainless Steel Bar From India--Petitioners' Request for Changed Circumstances Reviews,'' dated September 29, 2016 (CCR Request) at Exhibit GEN-1. \3\ See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55409 (September 14, 2004) (Viraj Revocation). The regulatory provision governing partial revocation at the time of Viraj's (and Venus's) revocation was 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). The relevant language remained substantively unchanged when 19 CFR 353.25 was superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 in 1997. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7308 (February 27, 1996) (1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking); see also Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27325-26, 27399-402 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble). The portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial revocations of orders as to specific companies has been revoked for all reviews initiated on or after June 20, 2012. See Modification to Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Final Rule, 77 FR 29875 (May 21, 2012) (Revocation Final Rule). \4\ See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation of the Order, in Part, 76 FR 56401 (September 13, 2011) (Venus Revocation). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On September 29, 2016, the petitioners \5\ alleged that, since their conditional revocation from the Order, there is evidence that Viraj and Venus have both resumed sales to the United States at prices below normal value (NV). The petitioners note that Viraj and Venus agreed in writing to reinstatement into the AD order if either company were found to have resumed dumping, and alleges that, because Viraj and Venus violated this agreement, the Department should initiate a changed circumstances review (CCR) to determine whether to reinstate Viraj and Venus into the Order.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Carpenter Technology Corporation, Crucible Industries LLC, Electralloy, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., North American Stainless, Outokumpu Stainless Bar, LLC, Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners) \6\ See CCR Request. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In November 2016, Viraj and Venus objected to the petitioners' request for a CCR.\7\ On November 28, 2016, the petitioners submitted a rebuttal to Venus' objection to the request for a CCR.\8\ Also in November 2016, the Department extended the time period for determining whether to initiate the CCR by 45 days to December 28, 2016.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See Letter from Viraj, ``Stainless Steel Bar from India,'' dated November 14, 2016 (Viraj Rebuttal) and Letter from Venus, ``Stainless Steel Bars (``SSB'') from India--Response to Request for Changed Circumstances Review,'' dated November 4, 2016 (Venus Rebuttal). \8\ See Letter from the petitioners, ``Stainless Bar from India--Petitioners' Comments Concerning Venus' Rebuttal Comments to Petitioners' Changed Circumstances Review Request,'' dated November 29, 2016. \9\ See Memorandum, ``Extension of Deadline to Initiate Changed Circumstances Review,'' dated November 10, 2016. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b), and as discussed in further detail below, the Department finds the information submitted by the petitioners sufficient to warrant initiation of a CCR of the AD order on SSB from India with respect to Viraj and Venus. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. In this CCR, we intend to determine whether Viraj or Venus sold SSB from India at less than NV subsequent to their revocations from the Order. If we make an affirmative preliminarily finding, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of SSB manufactured in India and exported by the company(ies) for which we made an affirmative finding. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the order is stainless steel bar. Stainless steel bar [[Page 91119]] means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e., cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Allegation of Resumed Dumping The allegation of resumed dumping upon which the Department has based its decision to initiate a CCR is detailed below. The sources of data for the adjustments that the petitioners calculated relating to NV and U.S. price are discussed in greater detail in the Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist dated concurrently with this notice. 1. Constructed Export Price The petitioners based U.S. price upon offers for sale from the respondents' U.S. affiliates to unaffiliated customers in the United States, which they obtained from a proprietary source.\10\ The offers for sale identify prices and terms of sale for a number of SSB models sold by the respondents' U.S. affiliates.\11\ The petitioners made adjustments for movement expenses consistent with the terms of sale, for the U.S. affiliates' profit and selling expenses, and for imputed credit expenses.\12\ We recalculated the imputed expenses to be consistent with Policy Bulletin 98.1.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See CCR Request at 11-12 and Exhibits AD-IN-2.B.1 and AD- IN-2.B.2. \11\ Id. \12\ Id. at 11-12 and Exhibits AD-IN-2.A.1 and AD-IN-2.A.2. \13\ See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist at ``Constructed Export Price'' section. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Normal Value The petitioners based NV on home market prices obtained from a proprietary source.\14\ The petitioners made an adjustment for imputed credit expenses.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ Id. at 15 and Exhibits AD-IN-3.A.1 and AD-IN-3.A.2. \15\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Cost of Production The petitioners based COP on the costs of an integrated U.S. producer of the subject merchandise, as the best information reasonably available, and made adjustments for known differences in cost between the domestic industry and the respondents.\16\ Based on a comparison of home market sales and the COP, the petitioners assert that there is reason to believe or suspect that certain home market sales made by Viraj and Venus were priced below COP.\17\ Accordingly, the petitioners consider those home market sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade, and relied on the remaining home market sales above COP to establish normal value.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ Id. at 15-17 and Exhibits AD-IN-4.F.1 and AD-IN-4.F.2. \17\ Id. at 17 and Exhibits AD-IN-5.A.1 and AD-IN-5.A.2. \18\ Id. at 17 and Exhibits AD-IN-6.A and AD-IN-6.B. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Alleged Margins of Dumping The petitioners allege that there is evidence that Viraj and Venus have both resumed dumping SSB in the United States that is sufficient to warrant initiation of a CCR to determine whether the respondents should be reinstated into the AD order. The petitioners' estimated dumping margins, as revised to recalculate imputed credit expenses for U.S. sales, range from 9.27 to 45.98 percent for Viraj and from 26.59 to 43.55 percent for Venus.\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist at ``Estimated Margins'' section. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments by Interested Parties As noted above, in November 2016, Viraj and Venus submitted comments on the petitioners' request that the Department initiate a CCR.\20\ These comments are detailed in the Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See Viraj Rebuttal and Venus Rebuttal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request ``from an interested party for review of an Aantidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.'' After examining the petitioners' allegation and supporting documentation, we find that the petitioners have provided evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to initiate a review to determine whether Viraj or Venus have resumed dumping and should be reinstated in the Order.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Department's authority to reinstate a revoked company into an AD order by means of a CCR derives from sections 751(b) and (d) of the Act.\22\ The Department's authority to revoke an order is expressed in section 751(d) of the Act. The statute, however, provides no detailed description of the criteria, procedures, or conditions relating to the Department's exercise of this authority. Accordingly, the Department issued regulations that set forth in detail how the Department will exercise the authority granted to it under the statute. At the time of the respondents' revocations from the Order, a Department regulation authorized the partial and conditional revocation of orders as to companies that were determined not to have made sales at less than NV for the equivalent of three consecutive years and that certified to the immediate reinstatement into an order if they resumed dumping.\23\ Although the regulatory provision for partial and conditional revocation of companies from orders has since been revoked, we have clarified that all conditionally revoked companies remain subject to their certified agreements to be reinstated into the [[Page 91120]] order from which they were revoked if the Department finds that the company has resumed dumping.\24\ For these reasons, conducting a CCR pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act to determine whether to reinstate Viraj or Venus into the Order is consistent with the statute and with the certification that the respondents signed as a precondition to their conditional revocation.\25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 649 F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Sahaviriya) (``{T{time} his court holds, applying Chevron deference, that Commerce reasonably interpreted its revocation authority under {section 751(d) of the Act{time} to permit conditional revocation . . . .''); id. at 1378-80 (finding that Commerce properly conducted a changed circumstances review for purposes of reconsidering revocation). \23\ See 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). As noted above, the relevant language regarding reinstatement remained substantively unchanged when 19 CFR 353.25 was superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 (1997), and the portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial revocations of orders as to specific companies has been revoked for all reviews initiated on or after June 20, 2012. See 1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Preamble; Revocation Final Rule. \24\ See Revocation Final Rule, 77 FR at 29882. \25\ See, e.g., Sahaviriya, 649 F.3d at 1380; Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 73 FR 18766, 18769 (April 7, 2008); see also Viraj Revocation, 69 FR at 55411 (``Viraj provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e) . . . {including{time} an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV.''); see also Venus Revocation, 76 at 56402-3 (``the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if we find that it has resumed making sales at less than fair value''). See also Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist at Exhibit 6 for copies of the respondents' agreements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Period of Changed Circumstances Review The Department intends to request data from Viraj and Venus for the July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, period to determine whether it should reinstate the Order with respect to these companies because they resumed dumping. Public Comment The Department intends to publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of CCR in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b) of the Department's regulations. Dated: December 12, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2016-30323 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![91118 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Notices
entries during the POR. Failure to circumstances review of the On September 29, 2016, the
comply with this requirement could antidumping duty order on stainless petitioners 5 alleged that, since their
result in the Department’s presumption steel bar (SSB) from India to determine conditional revocation from the Order,
that reimbursement of antidumping whether to reinstate the order with there is evidence that Viraj and Venus
duties occurred and the subsequent respect to Viraj Profı̀les Ltd. (Viraj) and have both resumed sales to the United
assessment of doubled antidumping Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its States at prices below normal value
duties. affiliates Hindustan Inox, Precision (NV). The petitioners note that Viraj and
Metals and Sieves Manufacturers (India) Venus agreed in writing to
Administrative Protective Order
Pvt. Ltd. (collectively, Venus). reinstatement into the AD order if either
This notice also serves as a reminder DATES: Effective December 16, 2016. company were found to have resumed
to parties subject to administrative dumping, and alleges that, because Viraj
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
protective order (APO) of their and Venus violated this agreement, the
Thomas Schauer, Enforcement and
responsibility concerning the return or Department should initiate a changed
Compliance, International Trade
destruction of proprietary information circumstances review (CCR) to
Administration, U.S. Department of
disclosed under APO in accordance determine whether to reinstate Viraj and
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which Venus into the Order.6
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
continues to govern business In November 2016, Viraj and Venus
(202) 482–0410.
proprietary information in this segment objected to the petitioners’ request for a
of the proceeding. Timely written SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
CCR.7 On November 28, 2016, the
notification of the return/destruction of Background petitioners submitted a rebuttal to
APO materials, or conversion to judicial Venus’ objection to the request for a
protective order, is hereby requested. On February 21, 1995, the Department
published the antidumping duty (AD) CCR.8 Also in November 2016, the
Failure to comply with the regulations Department extended the time period
and the terms of an APO is a order on SSB from India.1 On
September 14, 2004, the Department for determining whether to initiate the
sanctionable violation. CCR by 45 days to December 28, 2016.9
We are issuing and publishing this conditionally revoked the Order with
respect to merchandise produced and In accordance with section 751(b) of
notice in accordance with sections the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 exported by Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj
Forgings, Ltd., and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b), and as
CFR 351.213(h). discussed in further detail below, the
(collectively, Viraj, and now known as
Dated: December 9, 2016. Viraj Profiles Limited 2), based on a Department finds the information
Paul Piquado, finding of three years of no dumping.3 submitted by the petitioners sufficient
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and On September 13, 2011, the Department to warrant initiation of a CCR of the AD
Compliance. conditionally revoked the Order with order on SSB from India with respect to
respect to merchandise produced and Viraj and Venus. The period of review
Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in (POR) is July 1, 2015, through June 30,
the Final Issues and Decision exported by Venus, based on a finding
of three years of no dumping.4 2016.
Memorandum In this CCR, we intend to determine
I. Summary 1 See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel whether Viraj or Venus sold SSB from
II. List of Issues Bar from Brazil, India, and Japan, 60 FR 9661 India at less than NV subsequent to their
III. Background (February 21, 1995) (Order). revocations from the Order. If we make
IV. Scope of the Order 2 In July 2006, Viraj Forgings Ltd. merged with
an affirmative preliminarily finding, we
V. Discussion of Interested Party Comments Viraj Alloys Ltd.; in April 2007, Viraj Alloys and
Comment 1: Whether Certain of Toyo Viraj Impoexpo Ltd. merged into Viraj Profiles Ltd.
will direct U.S. Customs and Border
Kohan’s Home Market Transactions See Letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bar Protection to suspend liquidation of all
Were Made Outside the Ordinary Course From India—Petitioners’ Request for Changed entries of SSB manufactured in India
of Trade and Should Be Excluded From Circumstances Reviews,’’ dated September 29, 2016 and exported by the company(ies) for
(CCR Request) at Exhibit GEN–1.
Analysis 3 See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final
which we made an affirmative finding.
Comment 2: U.S. Date of Sale
Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Scope of the Order
Comment 3: Whether the Costs for a Administrative Review in Part, and Determination
Certain Control Number Should Be To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55409 (September 14, The merchandise subject to the order
Disregarded 2004) (Viraj Revocation). The regulatory provision is stainless steel bar. Stainless steel bar
VI. Recommendation governing partial revocation at the time of Viraj’s
[FR Doc. 2016–30306 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 am] (and Venus’s) revocation was 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). 5 Carpenter Technology Corporation, Crucible
The relevant language remained substantively
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P unchanged when 19 CFR 353.25 was superseded by Industries LLC, Electralloy, a Division of G.O.
19 CFR 351.222 in 1997. See Antidumping Duties; Carlson, Inc., North American Stainless,
Countervailing Duties: Notice of Proposed Outokumpu Stainless Bar, LLC, Universal Stainless
Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 & Alloy Products, Inc., and Valbruna Slater
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners)
FR 7308 (February 27, 1996) (1996 Notice of
6 See CCR Request.
Proposed Rulemaking); see also Antidumping
International Trade Administration Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 7 See Letter from Viraj, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bar from
27296, 27325–26, 27399–402 (May 19, 1997) India,’’ dated November 14, 2016 (Viraj Rebuttal)
[A–533–810]
(Preamble). The portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related and Letter from Venus, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bars
to partial revocations of orders as to specific (‘‘SSB’’) from India—Response to Request for
Stainless Steel Bar From India: companies has been revoked for all reviews Changed Circumstances Review,’’ dated November
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Initiation of Antidumping Duty initiated on or after June 20, 2012. See Modification 4, 2016 (Venus Rebuttal).
Changed Circumstances Review to Regulation Concerning the Revocation of 8 See Letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Stainless Bar
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: from India—Petitioners’ Comments Concerning
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Final Rule, 77 FR 29875 (May 21, 2012) (Revocation Venus’ Rebuttal Comments to Petitioners’ Changed
International Trade Administration, Final Rule). Circumstances Review Request,’’ dated November
4 See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results 29, 2016.
Department of Commerce.
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 9 See Memorandum, ‘‘Extension of Deadline to
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce and Revocation of the Order, in Part, 76 FR 56401 Initiate Changed Circumstances Review,’’ dated
(the Department) is initiating a changed (September 13, 2011) (Venus Revocation). November 10, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM 16DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_91360/page/1.svg)
![91120 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Notices
order from which they were revoked if DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE September 19, 2016, Petitioners,4
the Department finds that the company Indalco, and Liguori submitted their
has resumed dumping.24 For these International Trade Administration case briefs. On September 26, 2016,
reasons, conducting a CCR pursuant to Petitioners, Indalco, and Liguori
section 751(b) of the Act to determine [A–475–818] submitted their rebuttal briefs.
whether to reinstate Viraj or Venus into Scope of the Order
the Order is consistent with the statute Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Imports covered by the order are
and with the certification that the
Review; 2014–2015 shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta.
respondents signed as a precondition to The merchandise subject to review is
their conditional revocation.25 AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, currently classifiable under items
Period of Changed Circumstances International Trade Administration, 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the
Review Department of Commerce. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
SUMMARY: On August 12, 2016, the United States (HTSUS). Although the
The Department intends to request Department of Commerce (the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
data from Viraj and Venus for the July Department) published the preliminary convenience and customs purposes, the
1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, period results of the antidumping duty written description of the merchandise
to determine whether it should reinstate administrative review of certain pasta subject to the order is dispositive.5
the Order with respect to these (pasta) from Italy. The period of review Analysis of Comments Received
companies because they resumed (POR) is July 1, 2014, through June 30,
dumping. All issues raised in the case and
2015. As a result of our analysis of the rebuttal briefs by parties to this
Public Comment comments and information received, administrative review are addressed in
these final results differ from the the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
The Department intends to publish in Preliminary Results with respect to A list of the issues that parties raised
the Federal Register a notice of Industria Alimentare Colavita S.p.A. and to which we responded is attached
preliminary results of CCR in (Indalco) and Liguori Pastificio Dal 1820 to this notice as an Appendix. The
accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) (Liguori). For the final weighted-average Issues and Decision Memorandum is a
and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth dumping margins, see the ‘‘Final Results public document and is on-file
the Department’s preliminary factual of Review’’ section below. electronically via Enforcement and
and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 DATES: Effective December 16, 2016. Compliance’s Antidumping and
CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Countervailing Duty Centralized
will have an opportunity to comment on Zhang (Liguori) or George McMahon Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
the preliminary results. Unless (Indalco), AD/CVD Operations, Office ACCESS is available to registered users
otherwise extended, the Department III, Enforcement and Compliance, at https://access.trade.gov and in the
intends to issue its final results of International Trade Administration, Central Records Unit (CRU), room
review in accordance with the time U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th B8024 of the main Department of
limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Commerce building. In addition, a
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) complete version of the Issues and
This notice is published in Decision Memorandum can be accessed
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 482–1168 or (202) 482–1167,
respectively. directly on the Internet at http://
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.
351.221(b) of the Department’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The signed Issues and Decision
regulations. Memorandum and the electronic
Background
Dated: December 12, 2016. versions of the Issues and Decision
Christian Marsh, On August 12, 2016, the Department Memorandum are identical in content.
of Commerce (the Department)
Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping Changes Since the Preliminary Results
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
published the Preliminary Results.1 In
accordance with 19 CFR Based on a review of the record and
[FR Doc. 2016–30323 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 am] comments received from interested
351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P comment on our Preliminary Results. parties regarding our Preliminary
On September 7, 2016, Liguori Results, we have recalculated Indalco
24 See Revocation Final Rule, 77 FR at 29882. submitted a request for a hearing, which and Liguori’s weighted-average
25 See, e.g., Sahaviriya, 649 F.3d at 1380; was withdrawn on October 6, 2016.2 On dumping margins.6 As a result of the
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed August 31, 2016, the Department
Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 4 Petitioners consist of New World Pasta
Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 73 FR 18766,
revised the briefing schedule.3 On
Company, American Italian Pasta Company and
18769 (April 7, 2008); see also Viraj Revocation, 69 Dakota Growers Pasta Company.
1 See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary
FR at 55411 (‘‘Viraj provided each of the 5 For a full description of the scope of the order,
certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e) Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative see the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
. . . {including} an agreement to immediate Review; 2014–2015, 81 FR 53404 (August 12, 2016) Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
reinstatement of the order if the Department (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Review and Partial Rescission: Certain Pasta from
Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Italy; 2014–2015’’ from Christian Marsh, Deputy
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
concludes that the company, subsequent to the 2 See Liguori’s letter titled, ‘‘Hearing Request of Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than
Liguori Pastificio dal 1820 S.p.A.,’’ dated Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
NV.’’); see also Venus Revocation, 76 at 56402–3 September 7, 2016. See also Liguori’s letter titled, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
(‘‘the company has agreed to immediate ‘‘Certain Pasta from Italy: Withdrawal of Hearing Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice
reinstatement of the order if we find that it has Request of Liguori Pastificio dal 1820 S.p.A.,’’ dated (Issues and Decision Memorandum) and
resumed making sales at less than fair value’’). See October 6, 2016. incorporated herein by reference.
also Changed Circumstances Review Initiation 3 See the Department’s Memorandum to All 6 See Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also
Checklist at Exhibit 6 for copies of the respondents’ Interested Parties titled, ‘‘Postponement of Briefing Memorandum to the File, Through Eric B.
agreements. Schedule,’’ dated August 31, 2016. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office III, from Joy
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM 16DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_91360/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-14 09:07:09
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 09:07:09
| 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 | |
| Dates | Effective December 16, 2016. | |
| Contact | Thomas Schauer, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0410. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 91118 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR