SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 21, 1995, Commerce published the antidumping duty (AD) order on stainless steel bar from India.^[1] On May 13, 2026, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results, which included a partial rescission of this administrative review ^[2] and invited comments from interested parties.^[3] This review covers Atlas Stainless Corporation Private Limited, Astrabright LLP, Bahubali Steel Industries, Eurostahl Tech LLP, Venus Metal Corporation, Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd., Precision Metals, Hindustan Inox Ltd., and Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd., (collectively, the Venus Group) and Laxcon Steels Limited and its affiliates, Ocean Steels Private Limited, Metlax International Private Limited, Parvati Private Limited, and Mega Steels Private Limited (collectively, Laxcon), and five companies not selected for individual examination. In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce extended the deadline for the final results of this administrative review to November 9, 2026.^[4]

For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.^[5] 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 access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at access.trade.gov/​frnotices.

Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

Scope of the Order

The products covered by the Order are stainless steel bar. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.^[6]

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are listed in Appendix I to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided as an appendix to this notice.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

For the final results, we made changes to the Preliminary Results specific to Laxcon's data to reflect corrections presented at the sales and cost verification.^[7]

Rate for Non-Examined Companies

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally 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 on the basis of facts available. Where the rates for individually investigated companies are all zero or de minimis, or determined entirely using facts otherwise available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act instructs Commerce to rely on “any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined for exporters and producers individually investigated.”

In this review, for these final results, Commerce determined to apply adverse facts available (AFA) to the Venus Group, pursuant to section 776 of the Act, and assigned it a 30.92 percent dumping margin, and calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Laxcon Steels Limited of zero percent. Thus, for the final results, we applied to the non-examined companies, Aamor Inox Limited, Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd., Chandan Steel Limited, Mangalam Alloys Limited, and Welspun Specialty Solutions, Ltd., the rate of 15.46 percent, which is the simple average of the rate we calculated for the Laxcon Steels Limited and the dumping margin we have assigned to Atlas, determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.^[8]

Final Results of Administrative Review

For these final results of review, Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2024, through January 31, 2025:

Disclosure

We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review to interested parties in this review within five days after public announcement of the final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Assessment Rates

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales to that importer, and we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this. To determine whether an importer-specific, per-unit assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we also calculated an importer-specific ad valorem rate based on estimated entered values. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews.^[12]

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Aamor Inox Limited or the Venus Group for which it did not know their merchandise it sold to an intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate, i.e., 12.45 percent, if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise under review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for companies listed above will be the weighted-average dumping margins established in these final results of this review; (2) for subject merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 12.45 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.^[13]

These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Order (APO)

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or 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.

Notification to Interested Parties

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary

II. Background

III. Scope of the Order

IV. Changes from the Preliminary Results

V. Discussion of the Issues

Comment 1: Whether to Collapse Atlas with Astrabright, Hindustan, and Sieves

Comment 2: Whether to Apply Total Adverse Facts Available (AFA) to the Venus Group

Comment 3: Whether to Calculate the Non-Selected Rate Based on the Rate for the Mandatory Respondents

Comment 4: Whether to Revise the Review-Specific Rate Assigned to Bhansali Bright Bars Private Limited (Bhansali)

VI. Recommendation

91 FR 73207