[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68504-68508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28252]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-863, A-475-832, A-570-026, A-580-878, A-583-856, C-533-864, C-
475-833, C-570-027, C-580-879, C-583-857]


Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of 
China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of 
Critical Circumstances

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On June 3, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions 
concerning imports of corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from 
India, Italy, the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of 
Korea, and Taiwan.\1\ On July 23,

[[Page 68505]]

2015, the Department received timely allegations that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under 
investigation.\2\ Based on information provided by Petitioners, data 
placed on the record of these investigations by the mandatory 
respondents, and data collected by the Department, the Department 
preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist for imports 
of CORE from certain producers and exporters from Italy, the PRC, 
Korea, and Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties Against Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 
from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China (PRC), the 
Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, dated June 3, 2015 (the Petitions). 
The petitioners for these investigations are United States Steel 
Corporation, Nucor Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA, AK Steel 
Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and California Steel Industries, 
Inc. (Petitioners).
    \2\ See Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, 
the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: 
Critical Circumstances Allegations, July 23, 2105 (Critical 
Circumstances Allegation).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective date: November 5, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, 
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical 
circumstances exist in CVD investigations if there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect: (A) that ``the alleged countervailable 
subsidy'' is inconsistent with the Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures (SCM) Agreement of the World Trade Organization, and (B) that 
there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a 
relatively short period. Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the 
Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances 
exist in AD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect: (A)(i) That there is a history of dumping and material injury 
by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the 
subject merchandise, or (ii) that the person by whom, or for whose 
account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that 
the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair 
value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such 
sales, and (B) that there have been massive imports of the subject 
merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 19 CFR 351.206 
provides that imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the 
``relatively short period'' to be considered ``massive'' and defines a 
``relatively short period'' as normally being the period beginning on 
the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) 
and ending at least three months later.\3\ The regulations also 
provide, however, that, if the Department finds that importers, or 
exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to 
the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the 
Department may consider a period of not less than three months from 
that earlier time.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are Inconsistent With the SCM 
Agreement

    To determine whether an alleged countervailable subsidy is 
inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section 
703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department considered the evidence 
currently on the record of the five CVD investigations. Specifically, 
as determined in our initiation checklists, the following subsidy 
programs, alleged in the Petitions and supported by information 
reasonably available to Petitioners, appear to be either export 
contingent or contingent upon the use of domestic goods over imported 
goods, which would render them inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.

 India: Four export-contingent duty exemption/remission 
schemes,\5\ four duty and tax exemption programs for ``Export Oriented 
Units,'' \6\ the Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme,\7\ Pre-
Shipment and Post-Shipment Export Financing,\8\ Market Development 
Assistance Scheme,\9\ Market Access Initiative,\10\ Focus Product 
Scheme,\11\ Status Certificate Program,\12\ five duty and tax exemption 
programs for special economic zones,\13\ Incremental Exports 
Incentivisation Scheme,\14\ and three duty and tax exemption programs 
provided by the state of Gujarat for special economic zones \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See India CVD Initiation Checklist, June 23, 2015, at 7-9.
    \6\ Id. at 9-12.
    \7\ Id. at 12.
    \8\ Id. at 13.
    \9\ Id. at 13-14
    \10\ Id. at 14
    \11\ Id. at 14-15.
    \12\ Id. at 16.
    \13\ Id. at 17-20
    \14\ Id. at 23-24.
    \15\ Id. at 32-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Italy: Several export-contingent preferential financial 
products provided by the Special Section for Export Credit Insurance 
\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Italy CVD Initiation Checklist, June 23, 2015, at 15-
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The PRC: Export loans,\17\ Income Tax Credits for 
Domestically-Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically Produced 
Equipment,\18\ Preferential Income Tax Subsidies for Foreign-Invested 
Enterprises--Export Oriented FIEs,\19\ Foreign Trade Development Fund 
Grants,\20\ Export Assistance Grants,\21\ Programs to Rebate 
Antidumping Legal Fees,\22\ Subsidies for Development of Famous Export 
Brands and China World Top Brands,\23\ Sub-Central Government Programs 
to Promote Famous Export Brands and China World Top Brands,\24\ and 
Export Interest Subsidies \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, June 23, 2015, at 8-9.
    \18\ Id. at 18-19.
    \19\ Id. at 22.
    \20\ Id. at 36-37.
    \21\ Id. at 37.
    \22\ Id. at 37-38.
    \23\ Id. at 38.
    \24\ Id. at 39.
    \25\ Id. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Korea: Several export-contingent preferential financial 
products and services provided by the Korean Export-Import Bank 
Countervailable Subsidy Programs,\26\ preferential loans from the Korea 
Development Bank and Industrial Base Fund,\27\ and export financing 
provided by the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Korea CVD Initiation Checklist, June 23, 2015, at 10-
12.
    \27\ Id. at 13-14.
    \28\ Id. at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Taiwan: Grants for International Development Activities \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Taiwan CVD Initiation Checklist, June 23, 2015, at 14-
15.

    Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that there are 
alleged subsidies in each CVD investigation inconsistent with the SCM 
agreement.

History of Dumping and Material Injury/Knowledge of Sales Below Fair 
Value and Material Injury

    In order to determine whether there is a history of dumping 
pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department 
generally considers current or previous AD orders on subject 
merchandise from the country in question in the United States and 
current orders imposed by other countries with regard to imports of the 
same merchandise. The Department has previously issued an AD order on 
CORE

[[Page 68506]]

from Korea,\30\ based on nearly identical HTS categories, as well as AD 
orders on carbon steel flat products from the PRC.\31\ Moreover, there 
are current AD orders imposed by other World Trade Organization members 
against certain coated steel products (i.e., carbon steel flat products 
either clad, plated or coated with zinc, aluminum, or nickel) from 
Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan.\32\ Certain HTS numbers subject to these 
orders overlap with HTS numbers listed under our current CORE scope. 
Therefore, there is a history of dumping of subject merchandise 
exported from Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-To-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From France, India, 
Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 
(February 10, 2000).
    \31\ See Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China; Termination of 
Suspension Agreement and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 68 FR 
60081 (October 21, 2003) and Notice of the Antidumping Duty Order: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR 59561 (November 29, 2001).
    \32\ See Australia--AD/CVD Order on Zinc Coated (Galvanised) 
Steel and Aluminum Zinc Coated Steel from the PRC, Korea, and 
Taiwan, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, Anti-Dumping Duty Notice 
No. 2013/66 (August 5, 2013); Thailand--AD Order on Painted Hot Dip 
Galvanized Cold Rolled Steel and Painted Hot Dip Cold Rolled Steel 
Plated or Coated with Aluminum Zinc Alloys and Certain Hot Dip Cold 
Rolled Steel Plated or Coated with Aluminum Zinc Alloys from the 
PRC, Korea, and Taiwan: Royal Thai Gazette, Vol. 130, Special 
Section 3 (October 1, 2013) (updated re unpainted products, Royal 
Thai Gazette, Vol. 132, Special Section 32 (September 2, 2015)); 
Colombia--AD Order on Galvanized Smooth Sheet from the PRC: Diario 
Oficial, No. 49.084 (March 6, 2014); and Russia--AD Order on Cold-
Rolled Flat Steel Products with Polymer Coating from the PRC: 
Eurasian Economic Commission, Decision No. 49 (May 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that 
exporters were selling at less than fair value, we typically consider 
the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in 
petitions.\33\ The Department has found margins of 15 to 25 percent 
(depending on whether sales are export price sales or constructed 
export price sales) to be sufficient for this purpose.\34\ Dumping 
margins alleged in all five AD petitions are significantly above the 15 
to 25 percent threshold: 71.09 percent (India),\35\ 123.76 percent 
(Italy),\36\ 80.06 percent (Korea),\37\ 120.20 percent (the PRC),\38\ 
and 84.40 percent (Taiwan).\39\ Therefore, on that basis, we 
preliminarily conclude importers knew or should have known exporters in 
all five countries were selling at less than fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Australia, the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of 
Korea, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation, 67 FR 19157, 
19158 (April 18, 2002) (unchanged in the final determination).
    \34\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the 
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997) 
(unchanged in the final determination) and Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672 (July 16, 2004) 
(unchanged in the final determination).
    \35\ The Petitions, Volume VI at 5.
    \36\ Id., Volume IX at 28.
    \37\ Id., Volume IV at 13.
    \38\ Id., Volume II at 15.
    \39\ Id., Volume X at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there 
was likely to be material injury, we typically consider the preliminary 
injury determinations of the International Trade Commission (ITC).\40\ 
If the ITC finds material injury (as opposed to the threat of injury), 
we normally find that the ITC's determination provided importers with 
sufficient knowledge of injury. Where, as in this case,\41\ the ITC 
finds only threat of material injury, the Department may consider 
additional sources of information, such as trade and price statistics 
or press reports.\42\ Petitioners placed several press reports on the 
record indicating injury. For example: U.S. steel companies are 
struggling against a combination of lower oil prices, oversupply and 
excessive imports fed by a strong dollar. Those headwinds have become a 
perfect storm that could lead to more idled plants and layoffs, and 
spur a major international trade case against China, which steel makers 
accuse of undercutting the market with artificially low-priced product. 
U.S. Steel executives have expressed the great concern about cheap 
imports. On Thursday, CEO and President Mario Longhi testified before 
the Congressional Steel Caucus and warned of long-term damage to 
domestic steel makers from what the industry says is illegal dumping by 
foreign companies. China's state-subsidized industry continue to pump 
out steel, even as demand slows at home. That has led to surging 
exports, particularly to the United States.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain Potassium Phosphate 
Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical 
Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377 (June 1, 2010).
    \41\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From China, 
India, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-534-538 
and 731-TA-1274-1278 (Preliminary), 80 FR 44151 (July 24, 2015).
    \42\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products from Japan, 64 FR 24329 (May 6, 1999) at Comment 2.
    \43\ Critical Circumstances Allegation at Exhibit 8 (article 
published in the Pittsburgh Tribune).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Department has relied on massive imports and high 
dumping margins as factors indicating importers knew or should have 
known that there was likely to be material injury.\44\ As noted above, 
dumping margins alleged in the five AD petitions range from 71.09 
percent to 123.76 percent. As discussed below, we have determined 
imports were massive for certain producers/exporters shipping from 
Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan. Therefore, we preliminarily conclude 
importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be 
material injury as a result of sales sold at less than fair value, 
exported from all five countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic 
of China, 62 FR 61964, 61967 (November 20, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massive Imports

    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 
733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import 
volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months 
immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the ``base 
period'') to a comparable period of at least three months following the 
filing of the petition (i.e., the ``comparison period''). Imports 
normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison 
period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during 
the base period.
    Based on evidence provided by Petitioners, the Department finds 
that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), importers, exporters or producers 
had reason to believe, at some time prior to the filing of the 
petition, that a proceeding was likely. Specifically, the Department 
concludes that the factual information provided by Petitioners 
indicates that by March 2015, importers, exporters or producers had 
reason to believe that proceedings were likely. Among the documents 
Petitioners provided to support their claim of so-called ``early 
knowledge,'' the Department finds the following particularly relevant.
     On March 10, 2015, Steel Market Update acknowledged and 
responded to an influx of ``recent'' inquiries from

[[Page 68507]]

importers of cold-rolled steel and CORE steel products ``asking 
questions about the potential for a trade case or anti-dumping filing 
by the domestic mills against foreign steel imports.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation at Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On March 26, 2015, American Metal Market issued a press 
release stating that nearly 70 percent of industry participants 
expected cold-rolled and CORE steel cases to be filed in 2015.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id. at Exhibit 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On March 27, 2015, the Pittsburgh Tribune published an 
article stating that ``domestic steel makers are beginning to take 
their case to Washington.'' One expert quoted in the article concluded 
that a trade case appeared ``inevitable.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id. at Exhibit 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On March 30, 2015, Barron's published analysis by Credit 
Suisse concluding U.S. steel industry officials had ``no intention of 
delay'' and would pursue trade remedies as soon as possible. The 
article states that the U.S. industry would not pursue safeguard 
actions, but instead would pursue AD/CVD remedies focused on hot-rolled 
coil, cold-rolled coil, and CORE steel products.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. at Exhibit 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While additional information presented in Petitioners' exhibits 
indicate rumors of trade cases had been circulating as far back as 
2014,\49\ the above statements indicate that by March 2015, these 
rumors had turned to expectations among steel importers, exporters, and 
producers that forthcoming petitions were inevitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ This fact is noted in identical submissions filed on August 
3, 2015, on behalf of various respondents in the AD and CVD 
proceedings for Italy, Korea, and Taiwan. These submissions also 
claim Petitioners have not demonstrated the need for expedited 
action, but there is no requirement that such a need be 
demonstrated. Sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Act call for 
prompt action by the Department. The submissions also argue that we 
cannot reach a preliminary critical circumstances determination when 
the ITC finds ``threat of injury.'' While it is correct that final 
measures cannot be applied before an order when the ITC finds 
``threat of injury,'' the ITC has not yet issued a final 
determination. Moreover, as discussed above, the Department has 
previously issued preliminary affirmative critical circumstances 
determinations when the ITC has found ``threat of injury.'' Finally, 
the submissions also claim there is a seasonal increase in shipments 
at the beginning of the year in anticipation of spring and summer 
months. It is unclear, however, how such a seasonal increase would 
affect our calculations (given that our comparison period starts in 
March, after this seasonal increase would, apparently, have been 
long underway), and parties provided no suggestions for adjusting 
the shipment data on the record to account for the alleged seasonal 
increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in order to determine whether there has been a massive surge 
in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, the Department 
compared the total volume of shipments from March 2015 through 
September 2015 (all months for which data was available) with the 
preceding seven-month period of August 2014 through February 2015. For 
``all others,'' the Department compared Global Trade Atlas (GTA) data 
for the period March through August (the last month for which GTA data 
is currently available) with the proceeding six-month period of 
September 2014 through February 2015.\50\ We first subtracted shipments 
reported by the cooperating mandatory respondents from the GTA data. 
For non-cooperating mandatory respondents (i.e., those mandatory 
respondents that did not respond to our critical circumstances 
questionnaire or who otherwise indicated their unwillingness to 
participate in the investigations), we determined, on the basis of 
adverse facts available,\51\ that there has been a massive surge in 
imports. Accordingly, we preliminarily determined the following 
producers/exporters had massive surges in imports.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The Department gathered GTA data under the following 
harmonized tariff schedule numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 
7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 
7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 
7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 
7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.
    \51\ See Section 776 of the Act.
    \52\ See respective preliminary critical circumstances memoranda 
for each proceeding dated concurrently with this Federal Register 
notice.

 Italy (C-475-833): ILVA S.p.A. (ILVA)
 Korea (A-580-878): Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai); ``All 
Others''
 Korea (C-580-879): ``All Others''
 PRC (A-570-026): the PRC-wide entity; Hebei Iron & Steel Co., 
Ltd. (Tangshan Branch) (Tangshan); Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. 
(Baoshan)
 PRC (C-570-027): Angang Group Hong Kong Company Ltd. (Angang); 
Duferco S.A. (Duferco); Handan Iron & Steel Group (Handan); Changshu 
Everbright Material Technology (Everbright); Baoshan
 Taiwan (A-583-856 and C-583-857): ``All Others''

Conclusion

    Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect 
to imports of corrosion-resistant steel products shipped by certain 
producers/exporters. Our findings are summarized as follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Affirmative preliminary      Negative preliminary
                 Country                     Case No.       critical circumstances      critical circumstances
                                                                 determination               determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC.....................................       A-570-026  the PRC-wide entity;        Yieh Phui (China)
                                                           Tangshan; Baoshan.          Technomaterial Co., Ltd.
                                                                                       (YPC); All Other
                                                                                       producers/exporters
                                                                                       entitled to a separate
                                                                                       rate.
                                               C-570-027  Angang, Duferco, Handan,    YPC; All Other producers/
                                                           Everbright, Baoshan.        exporters.
Korea...................................       A-580-878  Hyundai; All Other          Dongkuk Steel Mill Co.,
                                                           producers/exporters.        Ltd. (Dongkuk/Union).
                                               C-580-879  All Other producers/        Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.
                                                           exporters.                  (Dongbu); Dongkuk/Union.
Taiwan..................................       A-583-856  All Other producers/        Yieh Phui Enterprises Co.,
                                                           exporters.                  Ltd. (Yieh Phui);
                                                                                       Prosperity Tieh
                                                                                       Enterprises Co., Ltd.
                                                                                       (Prosperity).
                                               C-583-857  All Other producers/        Yieh Phui; Prosperity.
                                                           exporters.
India...................................       A-533-863  no companies..............  Uttam Galva Steels, Ltd.
                                                                                       (Uttam); JSW Steel
                                                                                       Limited (JSW); All Other
                                                                                       producers/exporters.
                                               C-533-864  no companies..............  Uttam; JSW; All Other
                                                                                       producers/exporters.
Italy...................................       A-475-832  no companies..............  Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A.
                                                                                       (Arvedi); Marcegaglia
                                                                                       S.p.A. (Marcegaglia); All
                                                                                       Other producers/
                                                                                       exporters.
                                               C-475-833  ILVA......................  Arvedi; Marcegaglia; All
                                                                                       Other producers/
                                                                                       exporters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 68508]]

Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will issue final determinations concerning critical 
circumstances when we issue our final subsidy and less-than-fair-value 
determinations. All interested parties will have the opportunity to 
address these determinations in case briefs to be submitted after 
completion of the preliminary subsidies and less than fair value 
determinations.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we will 
notify the ITC of our determinations.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with sections 703(e)(2), because we have 
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to 
imports exported by certain producers and exporters, if we make an 
affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies 
have been provided to these same producers/exporters at above de 
minimis rates,\53\ we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from 
these producers/exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior 
to the effective date of ``provisional measures'' (e.g., the date of 
publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative 
preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been 
provided at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated 
preliminary subsidy rates reflected in the preliminary determination 
published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The preliminary determinations concerning the provision of 
countervailable subsidies are currently scheduled for November 2, 
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with sections 733(e)(2), because we have 
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to 
imports exported by certain producers and exporters, if we make an 
affirmative preliminary determination that sales at less than fair 
value have been made by these same producers/exporters at above de 
minimis rates,\54\ we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of subject merchandise from these producers/exporters that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date that is 90 days prior to the effective date of ``provisional 
measures'' (e.g., the date of publication in the Federal Register of 
the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less 
than fair value at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated 
preliminary dumping margins reflected in the preliminary determination 
published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The preliminary determinations concerning sales at less 
than fair value are currently scheduled for December 21, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).

    Dated: October 29, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-28252 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P