[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76444-76447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31083]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-602-809, A-351-845, A-588-874, A-421-813, C-351-846]
Antidumping Duty Investigations of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands and
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products From Brazil: Preliminary Determinations of Critical
Circumstances
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 11, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports
of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from
Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands, and a countervailing
duty (CVD) petition concerning hot-rolled steel from Brazil.\1\ On
October 23, 2015, the Department received timely allegations, pursuant
to sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical circumstances
exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under
investigation.\2\ Based on information provided by the petitioners,
data placed on the record of these investigations by the mandatory
respondents, and data collected by the Department from Global Trade
Atlas (GTA), the Department preliminarily determines that critical
circumstances exist for imports of hot-rolled steel from certain
producers and exporters from Brazil and Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia,
Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United
Kingdom, dated August 11, 2015, and Petitions for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products from Brazil, Korea, and Turkey, dated August 11, 2015
(collectively, the petitions). The petitioners for these
investigations are AK Steel Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA LLC,
Nucor Corporation, SSAB Enterprises, LLC, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and
United States Steel Corporation (the petitioners).
\2\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Australia,
Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands--Critical Circumstances
Allegations, October 23, 2105, and Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands--Critical
Circumstances Allegations, November 2, 2015 (making public certain
information in Attachment 2 of original submission) (collectively,
Critical Circumstances Allegation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0665, and (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2), the petitioners requested that
the Department issue a preliminary affirmative determination of
critical circumstances on an expedited basis. In accordance with
sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Act, because the petitioners
submitted their critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days
before the scheduled date of the final determination, the Department
must promptly issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations.
Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will
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 Agreement on
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 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's
regulations provides that, generally, imports must increase by at least
15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' to be considered
``massive'' and section 351.206(i) 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) \3\ and ending
at least three months later.\4\ The
[[Page 76445]]
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.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(40) (providing that a proceeding
begins on the date of the filing of a petition).
\4\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
\5\ 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 Brazil CVD investigation. Specifically,
as determined in our initiation checklist, the following subsidy
programs, alleged in the petition and supported by information
reasonably available to the 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:
Reduction of Tax on Industrialized Products (IPI) for Machines and
Equipment,\6\ Brazil's Export Financing Program (PROEX),\7\ Reintegra
Program,\8\ RECAP: Special Regime for the Acquisition of Capital Goods
for Export Companies,\9\ Integrated Drawback Scheme,\10\ Export Credit
Insurance and Guarantees,\11\ Export Guarantee Fund,\12\ Export
Promotion and Marketing Assistance,\13\ Banco do Brasil and Banco
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econ[ocirc]mico e Social (BNDES) ExIm
loans,\14\ FINAME loans,\15\ and Automatic BNDES.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, August 31, 2015, at 7.
\7\ Id., at 12.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id., at 13.
\10\ Id., at 14.
\11\ Id., at 15.
\12\ Id., at 16.
\13\ Id., at 17.
\14\ Id., at 34.
\15\ Id., at 35.
\16\ Id., at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines for purposes of
this critical circumstances determination that there are alleged
subsidies in the Brazil CVD investigation that are 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.\17\ The Department has previously issued AD orders on
hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Japan \18\
and Brazil.\19\ Moreover, there are current AD orders imposed by other
World Trade Organization members against hot-rolled steel products from
Brazil and Japan.\20\ Certain HTS numbers subject to these Brazil and
Japan orders overlap with HTS numbers listed in the scope of these hot-
rolled steel investigations. Therefore, there is evidence of a history
of dumping of subject merchandise exported from Brazil and Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination, 74
FR 59117, 59120 (November 17, 2009) unchanged in Certain Oil Country
Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of
Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010).
\18\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled
Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29,
1999).
\19\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled
Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 67 FR 11093 (March 12,
2002).
\20\ See Attachment 1 of Critical Circumstances Allegation
(containing ``Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the
Agreement'' from Australia to World Trade Organization depicting
``Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December 31,
2014'' which lists Hot Rolled Steel Coil from, Japan, et.al.; Semi-
Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement'' from Canada to
World Trade Organization depicting ``Definitive Anti-Dumping
Measures in Force, as of December 31, 2014'' which lists Certain
Flat Hot-Rolled Carbon and Alloy Steel Sheet and Strip from Brazil,
et.al.; and ``Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the
Agreement'' from Thailand to World Trade Organization depicting
``Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December 31,
2014'' which lists Flat Hot Rolled Steel in Coils and not in Coils
from Japan, et.al.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\21\ 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.\22\ The
Department initiated these AD investigations based on the following
estimated dumping margins: 99.20 percent (Australia); 34.28 percent
(Brazil); 16.15 to 34.53 percent (Japan); and 55.21 to 173.17 percent
(Netherlands). All of these margins are above the 15 to 25 percent
threshold.\23\ Therefore, on that basis, we preliminarily conclude that
importers knew or should have known that exporters in all four
countries were selling subject merchandise at less than fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 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).
\22\ 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).
\23\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia,
Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic
of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-
Value Investigations, 80 FR 54261, 54265 (September 9, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).\24\
If the ITC finds material injury (rather than the threat of injury), we
normally find that the ITC's determination provided importers with
sufficient knowledge of injury. In these investigations, the ITC's
finding of material injury by reason of imports of hot-rolled steel
from, inter alia, Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands is
sufficient to impute knowledge of the likelihood of material injury for
each of these countries.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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).
\25\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia,
Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United
Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-545-547 and 731-TA-1291-1297 (Prelim),
USITC Pub. 4570 (Oct. 2015) at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive Imports
In determining whether there have been ``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
[[Page 76446]]
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 the 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 available factual information provided by the
petitioners indicates that by June 2015, importers, exporters or
producers had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely. The
Department finds the following information relevant from the press
articles the petitioners provided to support their claim of ``early
knowledge'':
On May 11, 2015, American Metal Market issued an article
acknowledging an industry analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity Research
indicating that ``flat-rolled steel trade cases could move forward soon
due to congressional bickering surrounding Trade Promotion Authority
(TPA).'' \26\ That article included statements about the past and
current state of hot-rolled coil prices, thereby indicating that the
potential trade cases included hot-rolled steel.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation at Attachment 2.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 29, 2015, another industry source, Steel Business
Briefer, indicated that an informant of a service center executive
stated that he was 90 percent sure that a filing on flat-rolled
products will take place next week (i.e., in June). According to the
informant, ``US sheet mills are waiting . . . to finish data collection
. . . and that {one{time} mill has already contacted him to gather
information. {US mills are{time} having trouble with their customers
finding out how much import they're buying.'' \28\ The article also
included assessments on hot-rolled and cold-rolled coil prices, thereby
demonstrating that the potential trade cases concerned both hot-rolled
and cold-rolled products.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 4, 2015, a day after trade cases were filed on
corrosion-resistant steel products, American Metal Market issued an
article stating that this case was the ``first of many expected across
U.S. steel markets in the coming weeks and months.'' Additionally, an
industry analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity Research was quoted as saying
that he believed that ``the {U.S{time} industry is also working on
cold-rolled and potentially hot-rolled cases as well.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2015, American Metal Market issued an article
providing commentary from the chairman, president, and chief executive
officer (CEO) of AK Steel Corporation (one of the petitioning companies
in this investigation), confirming that the trade cases on hot-rolled
and cold-rolled coil were likely to come shortly after the already-
filed trade case on corrosion-resistant steel. In particular, the
author indicated that, according to the CEO, ``{d{time} omestic
steelmakers are considering trade petitions against imports of hot-
rolled and cold-rolled coil.'' Further, the CEO was quoted as saying,
``All aspects of the carbon product are being analyzed. Whether (hot-
rolled coil) is the next case or the third case, all three are being
looked at and one has been filed. . . The others are being evaluated .
. . At this point, we look to our advisors and our lawyers to give us
the go-ahead. . .'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above references, by industry specialists and authorities, to
the impending trade cases on hot-rolled steel indicate that steel
importers, exporters, and producers had, by the end of June 2015,
sufficiently credible reasons to believe that forthcoming petitions
were likely.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ In its November 3, 2015, submission, a Japanese producer,
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, commented that the
Department has previously rejected the mere presence of rumors in
press articles as being too speculative to form a basis for imputing
knowledge that a petition was likely. Similarly, in its November 13,
2015, comments, a Dutch producer, Tata Steel IJmuiden B.V.,
commented that none of the articles the petitioners cited rise to
anything above speculation, claiming that the strongest
characterization of the articles that could be made concerning hot-
rolled steel is that the U.S. industry was looking into whether a
case could be brought, not that a case would be initiated and that
such an initiation was imminent. In its November 2, 2015,
submission, an Australian producer/exporter, BlueScope Steel Ltd.
(BlueScope) asserted that ``the existence of one or two
uncorroborated rumors reported in the press articles in June 2015,
hardly constitutes a `reason to believe' that a case against hot-
rolled steel . . . was `likely,' as required by the regulations.''
On the basis of the information in various industry articles it
submitted, BlueScope notes that, in many months leading up to the
filing of a case against imports of coated steel in June 2015, a
case against imports of hot-rolled steel had not been mentioned
since the time it was first rumored in July 2014; and cases against
imports of cold-rolled and coated steel had been repeatedly rumored
but not filed. BlueScope argues that, given the repeated
unreliability of rumors in the past, importers would have been
understandably skeptical of any reports emerging in June 2015 of a
case against imports of hot-rolled steel. We do not find interested
parties' arguments persuasive. The records of these investigations
show that rumors on trade cases against imports of corrosion-
resistant, cold-rolled, and hot-rolled steels cases had been
circulating as far back as 2014. The records also show that these
three cases were often referenced collectively, or were simply
referred to as ``flat rolled'' cases. When trade cases were actually
filed on imports of corrosion-resistant steel in early June 2015, we
find that this solidified rumors into the expectation among steel
importers, exporters, and producers that forthcoming petitions on
the remaining products (i.e., cold-rolled and hot-rolled steels)
were inevitable. This is corroborated by the statements from the CEO
of AK Steel Corporation in the June 9, 2015, article by American
Metal Market, which illuminated the imminence of trade cases on
imports of cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel, stating that the
requisite data were ``available'' and that other cases are ``going
to follow'' pending legal approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 during the period June 2015
through October 2015 (all months for which data was available) with the
volume of shipments during the preceding five-month period of January
2015 through May 2015. For ``all others,'' the Department compared GTA
data for the period June 2015 through September 2015 (the last month
for which GTA data is currently available) with data for the preceding
four-month period of February 2014 through May 2015.\33\ We subtracted
shipments reported by the mandatory respondents from the GTA data. With
respect to Australia and the Netherlands, the shipment data do not
demonstrate massive surges in imports for any producers/exporters.
Therefore, we are reaching a preliminary negative critical
circumstances determination with respect to Australia and the
Netherlands. With respect to Brazil and Japan, we preliminarily
determine the following producers/exporters had massive surges in
imports.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The Department gathered GTA data under the following
harmonized tariff schedule numbers: 7208.10.1500, 7208.10.3000,
7208.10.6000, 7208.25.3000, 7208.25.6000, 7208.26.0030,
7208.26.0060, 7208.27.0030, 7208.27.0060, 7208.36.0030,
7208.36.0060, 7208.37.0030, 7208.37.0060, 7208.38.0015,
7208.38.0030, 7208.38.0090, 7208.39.0015, 7208.39.0030,
7208.39.0090, 7208.40.6030, 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000,
7208.54.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.14.0030,
7211.14.0090, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.3000,
7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7530, 7211.19.7560,
7211.19.7590, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.30.3050,
7225.30.7000, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000,
7226.11.9030, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000,
7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, and 7226.91.8000.
\34\ See respective preliminary critical circumstances memoranda
for each proceeding, dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil (A-351-845 and C-351-846): Companhia Siderugica
Nacional (CSN), Usinas Siderurgicas da Minas Gerais S.A. (Usiminas);
[[Page 76447]]
Japan (A-588-874): Nippon Steel & Sumikin Bussan
Corporation (Nippon), JFE Steel Corporation (JFE);
Conclusion
Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect
to imports of hot-rolled steel shipped by certain producers/exporters.
Our findings are summarized as follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative preliminary Negative preliminary
Country Case No. critical circumstances critical circumstances
determinations determinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia............................ A-602-809.............. None................... BlueScope; all other
producers/exporters.
Brazil............................... A-351-845.............. CSN; Usiminas.......... All other producers/
C-351-846.............. exporters.
Japan................................ A-588-874.............. Nippon; JFE............ All other producers/
exporters.
Netherlands.......................... A-421-813.............. None................... Tata; all other
producers/exporters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Critical Circumstances Determinations
We will issue final determinations concerning critical
circumstances when we issue our final countervailing duty 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 countervailing duty and
less than fair value determinations.
ITC Notification
In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we have
notified the ITC of our determinations.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(e)(2) of the Act, because we have
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to
exports made by certain producers and/or exporters, if we make an
affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies
have been provided to these same producers/exporters at above de
minimis rates,\35\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The preliminary determination in the countervailing duty
investigation for Brazil is currently scheduled for January 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, because we have
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to
exports made by certain producers and/or 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,\36\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The preliminary determinations concerning sales at less
than fair value are due on March 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).
Dated: December 2, 2015.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-31083 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P