[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18796-18799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08956]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-849]


Antidumping Duty Investigation on Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs 
From Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines 
that critical circumstances exist for imports of refillable stainless 
steel kegs (kegs) from Mexico.

DATES: Applicable May 2, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Hollander at (202) 482-2805, 
AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In response to petitions filed on September 20, 2018, on behalf of 
the American Keg Company LLC (the petitioner),\1\ Commerce initiated 
antidumping duty (AD) investigations concerning kegs from Germany, 
Mexico, and the People's Republic of China (China) and a countervailing 
duty investigation concerning kegs from China.\2\ THIELMANN Mexico S.A. 
de C.V. (THIELMANN) is the sole mandatory respondent in the 
investigation of kegs from Mexico. On December 3, 2018, THIELMANN 
informed Commerce that it did not intend to respond to the initial 
questionnaire. On December 10, 2018, the petitioner timely filed an 
allegation that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of 
kegs from Mexico.\3\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), when a 
critical circumstances allegation is submitted more than 20 days before 
the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, Commerce must 
issue a preliminary finding of whether there is a reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist by no later than 
the date of the preliminary determination. In the subject AD 
investigation, the petitioner requested that Commerce issue a 
preliminary critical circumstances determination on an expedited 
basis.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the petitioner's Letter, ``Petition for the Imposition 
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs 
from Germany, Mexico, and the People's Republic of China and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs 
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated September 20, 2018 (the 
Petition).
    \2\ See Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs from the People's 
Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Mexico: 
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 83 FR 52195 
(October 16, 2018) (Initiation Notice); see also Refillable 
Stainless Steel Kegs from the People's Republic of China: Initiation 
of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 83 FR 52192 (October 16, 
2018).
    \3\ See the petitioner's Letter, ``Refillable Stainless Steel 
Kegs from Mexico: Petitioner's Critical Circumstances Allegation,'' 
dated December 10, 2018 (Allegation).
    \4\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by 
the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018, through 
the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019.\5\ On March 19, 2019, 
Commerce postponed the deadline for the preliminary determination at 
the request of the petitioner.\6\ Accordingly, the revised deadline for 
the preliminary determination is May 28, 2019.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum, ``Deadlines Affected by the Partial Shutdown 
of the Federal Government,'' dated January 28, 2019. All deadlines 
in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 40 days.
    \6\ See Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs from the Federal 
Republic of Germany, Mexico and the People's Republic of China: 
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-
Value Investigations, 84 FR 10033 (March 19, 2019) (Postponement 
Notice).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) 
provides that Commerce, upon receipt of a timely filed allegation of 
critical circumstances, will preliminarily determine that critical 
circumstances exist in AD investigations if there is a reasonable basis 
to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) 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) 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) there have been massive imports of the 
subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
    Section 351.206(h)(2) of Commerce's regulations provides that, 
generally, imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the 
``relatively short period'' to be considered ``massive'' and Sec.  
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) \8\ and ending at least three months later.\9\ 
Commerce's regulations also provide, however, that, if Commerce 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, Commerce may consider a period of not less than three 
months from that earlier time.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(40) (providing that a proceeding 
begins on the date of the filing of a petition).
    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) and (i).
    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Circumstances Allegation

    In its allegation, the petitioner contends that, based on the 
dumping margin alleged in the Petition, importers knew, or should have 
known, that the merchandise under consideration was being sold at less 
than fair value.\11\ The petitioner also contends that, based on the 
preliminary determination of injury by the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (ITC), there is a reasonable basis to impute importers' 
knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such imports.\12\ 
Finally, the petitioner contends that, because verifiable shipment data 
do not exist because of the respondent's failure to cooperate in the 
investigation, an adverse inference

[[Page 18797]]

can be made that imports were massive during the relevant time 
period.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Allegation at 5-9.
    \12\ Id. at 9-10.
    \13\ Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Circumstances Analysis

Use of Facts Available With Adverse Inferences

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that Commerce shall, 
subject to section 782(d) of the Act, apply ``facts otherwise 
available'' if: Necessary information is not on the record or an 
interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds information that 
has been requested; (B) fails to provide information within the 
deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by Commerce, 
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides information that 
cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Because 
the mandatory respondent THIELMANN has not provided necessary 
information in this investigation, we preliminarily find that necessary 
information is not on the record, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the 
Act. Furthermore, because THIELMANN is not participating in this 
investigation, we also preliminarily find that THIELMANN withheld 
information that was requested by Commerce, significantly impeded this 
proceeding, and failed to provide information within the deadlines 
established, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the 
Act, respectively. Therefore, we have made this preliminary 
determination of critical circumstances on the basis of the facts 
otherwise available.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that Commerce may use an adverse 
inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available when a 
party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with a request for information. Further, section 776(b)(2) of 
the Act states that an adverse inference may include reliance on 
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the 
investigation, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. Because THIELMANN determined not to participate 
in this investigation, we find that THIELMANN did not cooperate to the 
best of its ability in this investigation, pursuant to section 776(b) 
of the Act. Therefore, we find that adverse inferences are warranted in 
selecting from the facts available regarding certain aspects of this 
preliminary determination of critical circumstances. We detail our use 
of adverse inferences in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available below.

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

    To determine whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to 
section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce generally considers 
current or previous AD orders on the 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.\14\ In 
this case, the current investigation of the subject merchandise marks 
the first instance that Commerce has examined whether sales of the 
subject merchandise have been made at less than fair value in the 
United States. Accordingly, Commerce previously has not imposed an AD 
order on the subject merchandise. Moreover, Commerce is not aware of 
any AD order on the subject merchandise from Mexico in another country. 
Therefore, Commerce finds no history of injurious dumping of the 
subject merchandise pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ [thinsp]See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe 
from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972-73 (June 5, 
2008); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter 
Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 2049, 
2052-53 (January 14, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that 
exporters were selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value, 
pursuant section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, we typically consider the 
magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in the 
petition.\15\ Commerce has found margins of 15 percent or more (for 
constructed export price or CEP) to 25 percent or more (for export 
price or EP) to be sufficient for this purpose.\16\ Commerce initiated 
this AD investigation based on an estimated margin of 18.48 percent for 
EP sales. For the reasons discussed above, we find that an adverse 
inference is warranted in selecting from the facts available. 
THIELMANN's quantity and value

[[Page 18798]]

questionnaire response indicates a mix of EP and CEP sales.\17\ 
Furthermore, the petition identifies the existence of a U.S. affiliate, 
Thielmann US LLC.\18\ As such, as an adverse inference in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available, we preliminarily find that 
THIELMANN's sales were a mix of CEP and EP sales. The margin alleged in 
the petition exceeds the 15 percent threshold for CEP sales necessary 
to impute importer knowledge.\19\ Because THIELMANN's sales were a mix 
of CEP and EP sales, and the margin alleged in the petition, the only 
relevant fact on the record, exceeds the 15 percent threshold for CEP 
sales, we preliminarily find that knowledge of sales at less than fair 
value may be imputed to importers. Thus, we preliminarily determine 
that importers knew or should have known that exporters in Mexico were 
selling subject merchandise at less than fair value, satisfying the 
criteria under section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., 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, 80 FR 
68504 (November 5, 2015) (CORE Critical Circumstances Prelim); see 
also Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 81 FR 35329 (June 2, 2016) 
(India Final); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From 
Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 
81 FR 35320 (June 2, 2016) (Italy Final); Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 81 FR 35303 (June 2, 2016) 
(Korea Final); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances 
Determination, in Part, 81 FR 35316 (June 2, 2016) (China Final); 
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 81 FR 35313 (June 
2, 2016) (Taiwan Final); Countervailing Duty Investigation of 
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, 81 FR 
35308 (June 2, 2016) (China CVD Final); Countervailing Duty 
Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from 
Taiwan: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 81 FR 
35299 (June 2, 2016) (Taiwan CVD Final); Countervailing Duty 
Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From 
Italy: Final Affirmative Determination and Final Affirmative 
Critical Circumstances, in Part, 81 FR 35326 (June 2, 2016) (Italy 
CVD Final); Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea: Final 
Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances Determination, in Part, 81 FR 35310 (June 2, 2016) 
(Korea CVD Final); 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 Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From Australia, 67 FR 47509 (July 19, 2002), Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of 
China, 67 FR 62107 (October 3, 2002), Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from India, 67 FR 47518 (July 19, 2002), Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea, 67 FR 62124 (October 
3, 2002), Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products From The Netherlands, 67 FR 62112 (October 3, 2002), 
Notice of the Final Determination Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From the Russian Federation, 67 FR 62121 (October 3, 2002).
    \16\ Id.; see also 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 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 (November 20, 1997); 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 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
    \17\ See Letter from THIELMANN, ``Refillable Stainless Steel 
Kegs from Mexico: Quantity and Value Questionnaire Response,'' dated 
October 24, 2018.
    \18\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the 
petitioners, ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs from Germany, Mexico, and 
the People's Republic of China and Countervailing Duties on Imports 
of Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs from the People's Republic of 
China,'' dated September 20, 2018 at Volume I, Exhibit GEN-24 and 
Volume IV, Exhibit MEX-AD-1.
    \19\ In other preliminary critical circumstances determinations, 
Commerce has applied the 15 percent CEP threshold when sale types 
were mixed and the majority of the sales were CEP. See e.g., 
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled 
Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 
Final Determination and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, 77 FR 31309 (May 26, 2012) unchanged in 
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled 
Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances Determination, 77 FR 63788 (November 17, 2012); Notice 
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-
Freezers From Mexico, 76 FR 67688 (Nov. 2, 2011) unchanged in Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount 
Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From Mexico, 77 FR 17422 (March 
26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there 
was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports 
pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, Commerce normally will 
look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC.\20\ If the ITC 
finds a reasonable indication of material injury (rather than the 
threat of injury) to the relevant U.S. industry, Commerce will normally 
determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute to importers 
sufficient knowledge of injury by such imports. In the subject AD 
investigation, the ITC found that there is a ``reasonable indication'' 
of material injury to the domestic industry because of the imported 
subject merchandise.\21\ Therefore, the ITC's preliminary injury 
determination in this investigation is sufficient to impute knowledge 
of the likelihood of material injury to importers. Thus, we 
preliminarily determine that importers knew, or should have known, that 
there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such 
imports, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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).
    \21\ See USITC, Investigation Nos. 70l-TA-610 and 73l-TA-1425-
1427 (Preliminary), Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs From China, 
Germany, and Mexico at 1 (November 5, 2018); see also Refillable 
Stainless Steel Kegs from China, Germany, and Mexico, 83 FR 56102 
(November 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massive Imports

    In determining whether imports of subject merchandise from Mexico 
were ``massive'' over a relatively short period, pursuant to section 
733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h), Commerce 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 will normally be considered massive when imports during the 
comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to 
imports during the base period.
    As discussed above, we are applying adverse facts available in 
reaching our findings for certain aspects of this preliminary 
determination of critical circumstances. We do not have information 
regarding import volumes for THIELMANN, based on its non-participation 
in this investigation. We preliminarily find, on the basis of adverse 
facts available, that THIELMANN had massive imports of subject 
merchandise over a relatively short period, satisfying the criteria 
under section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h). Thus, we 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist regarding 
imports of kegs from Mexico shipped by THIELMANN, pursuant to section 
733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206.
    To determine massive imports for all other companies, Commerce's 
normal practice is to subtract shipments reported by the cooperating 
mandatory respondents from shipment data of subject merchandise 
compiled by the ITC.\22\ However, due to the broad nature of the HTSUS 
numbers under which the subject merchandise is entered, there are no 
reliable shipment data available.\23\ Additionally, there is no 
cooperating mandatory respondent in this investigation.\24\ Therefore, 
we have made this preliminary determination on whether massive imports 
exist for all other companies using adverse facts available, pursuant 
to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. Accordingly, we preliminarily 
find that all other companies have massive imports of subject 
merchandise over a relatively short period and, thus, critical 
circumstances exist regarding imports of kegs from Mexico produced and/
or exported by all other companies, pursuant to section 733(e) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., CORE Critical Circumstances Prelim and India 
Final, Italy Final, Korea Final, China Final, Taiwan Final, China 
CVD Final, Taiwan CVD Final, Italy CVD Final, Korea CVD Final.
    \23\ See Initiation Notice.
    \24\ Commerce sent quantity and value questionnaires to each of 
the companies identified in the Petition, but of those five 
companies only THIELMANN responded. See Letter from Commerce to 
interested parties, ``Quantity and Value Questionnaire for the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs 
from Mexico'' (October 11, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    We will issue our final determination concerning critical 
circumstances when we issue our final less-than-fair-value 
determination. All interested parties will have the opportunity to 
address this preliminary determination regarding critical circumstances 
in case briefs to be submitted after completion of the preliminary 
less-than-fair-value determination, in accordance with Commerce's 
instructions to be issued following the publication of the preliminary 
determination of sales at less than fair value.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of this preliminary determination of critical circumstances.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, because we have

[[Page 18799]]

preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to 
all imports of kegs from Mexico, if we make an affirmative preliminary 
determination of sales at less than fair value at above de minimis 
rates,\25\ we will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise 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. The suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Commerce intends to issue its preliminary determinations 
concerning the sales at less than fair value investigations no later 
than May 28, 2019. See Postponement Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c).

    Dated: April 26, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-08956 Filed 5-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P