[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11053-11054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05647]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-864]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that 
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of 
certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from India for the 
period of review November 6, 2015, through December 31, 2016.

DATES: Applicable March 25, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Neuman or Matthew Renkey, AD/
CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0486 and 202 
(482)-2312, respectively.

Background

    Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the CVD order on CORE from India on August 10, 2018.\1\ On 
December 6, 2018, we fully extended postponed the deadline for the 
final results of this review until March 18, 2019.\2\ Our post-
preliminary analysis was released on December 19, 2018.\3\ In this 
review we examined JSW Steel Limited and JSW Steel Coated Products 
Limited (collectively, JSW), as well as Uttam Galva Steels Limited and 
Uttam Value Steels Limited (collectively, Uttam), the only companies 
for which a review was requested. Based on an analysis of the comments 
received, Commerce has made certain changes to the subsidy rates 
published in the Preliminary Results. The final subsidy rate is listed 
in the ``Final Results of Administrative Review'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India: 
Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review; 2015-2016, 83 FR 39670 (August 10, 2018) and accompanying 
Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
    \2\ See Commerce Memorandum, ``Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel 
Products from India: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of the 
First Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,'' dated December 6, 
2018.
    \3\ See Commerce Memorandum, ``Administrative Review of the 
Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel 
Products from India: Post-Preliminary Analysis,'' dated December 19, 
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are certain corrosion-resistant 
steel products from India. For a full description of the scope, see the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Commerce Memorandum, ``Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016: 
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India,'' dated 
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and 
Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised by the Government of India (GOI), JSW, Uttam, and 
the petitioners \5\ in their case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues are identified in the 
Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public 
document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service 
System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the 
main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version 
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the 
internet at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and 
Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The petitioners are United States Steel Corporation, Nucor 
Corporation, Steel Dynamics Inc., California Steel Industries, 
ArcelorMittal USA LLC, and AK Steel Corporation. California Steel 
Industries, Inc. and Steel Dynamics, Inc. are the two petitioners 
who have actively participated in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on comments received from interested parties, we have made 
revisions to some of our subsidy rate calculations for JSW and Uttam. 
For a discussion of these issues, see the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.

Methodology

    We conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 
751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each 
of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a 
subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ``authority'' that gives 
rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is 
specific.\6\ For a full description of the methodology underlying our 
conclusions, including any determination that relied upon the use of 
adverse facts available pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, 
see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding 
financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding 
benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of the Review

    In accordance with section 777A(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(5), we find that the following net countervailable subsidy 
rate exists for the mandatory respondents, JSW and Uttam, for the 
period November 6, 2015, through December 31, 2016:

[[Page 11054]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Subsidy rate (percent ad
           Manufacturer/exporter                      valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSW Steel Limited and JSW Steel Coated                             11.30
 Products Limited \7\.....................
Uttam Galva Steels Limited and Uttam Value                        588.43
 Steels Limited \8\.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue 
appropriate instructions to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days 
after the date of publication of the final results of this review. We 
will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise 
produced and/or exported by the company listed above, entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, from November 6, 2015, 
through December 31, 2016, at the ad valorem rates listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Cross-owned affiliates are: JSW Steel Coated Products 
Limited (a producer and exporter of subject merchandise), Amba River 
Coke Limited, JSW Steel (Salav) Limited, and JSW Steel Processing 
Centers Limited.
    \8\ Cross-owned affiliates are: Uttam Value Steels Limited (a 
producer and exporter of subject merchandise) and Uttam Galva 
Metallics Limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    We intend also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of 
estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for JSW and 
Uttam, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, Commerce will 
instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent 
company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as 
appropriate. Accordingly, the cash deposit requirements that will be 
applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this 
administrative review, are those established in the most recently 
completed segment of the proceeding for each company. These cash 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 
an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibilities 
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 
terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    These final results are issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 20, 2019.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
V. Subsidies Valuation Information
VI. Analysis of Programs
VII. Analysis of Comments
    Comment 1: Whether Commerce Erred by Investigating New Subsidy 
Allegations and Not Providing the GOI With an Opportunity To Conduct 
Consultations
    Comment 2: Whether Commerce Can Rely on Prior Findings of Fact
    Comment 3: Whether Commerce Should Apply Adverse Facts Available 
as a Result of the GOI's Failure To Cooperate to the Best of Its 
Ability
    Comment 4: Whether Commerce Should Apply Adverse Facts Available 
to Uttam Galva
    Comment 5: Whether the Incremental Export Incentivization Scheme 
Is Countervailable
    Comment 6: Whether the Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme 
Is Countervailable
    Comment 7: Whether the Advance Authorization Program, Duty 
Drawback Program, and Duty Free Authorization Program Are 
Countervailable
    Comment 8: Whether Programs Administered by the State 
Governments of Maharashtra and Karnataka Are Countervailable
    Comment 9: Whether the Merchandise Exports From India Scheme Is 
Countervailable
    Comment 10: Whether Uttam Galva's Benefits Under the Merchandise 
Exports From India Scheme Should Be Tied to U.S. Exports
    Comment 11: Whether Safeguard Duties Should Be Included in the 
Advanced Authorization Program Calculations
    Comment 12: Whether the Administration of the Sick Industrial 
Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) Through the Board 
for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) Constitutes a 
Subsidy
    Comment 13: Whether Commerce Erred in Its Preliminary 
Calculations for Uttam Galva
    Comment 14: Correction of a Ministerial Error in the 
Calculations for JSW
    Comment 15: Whether Commerce Should Apply the Cash-Flow Method 
in Determining When the Benefits Are Received
VIII. Conclusion

[FR Doc. 2019-05647 Filed 3-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P