[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