[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31025-31028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13863]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-874]


Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No 
Shipments; 2016-2017

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain 
hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan were sold at less than normal 
value during the period of review (POR), March 22, 2016 through 
September 30, 2017.

DATES: Applicable June 28, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun Jack Zhao or Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1396 or (202) 482-2371, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 14, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of 
this review in the Federal Register.\1\ We invited interested parties 
to comment on the Preliminary Results. Between December 14 and December 
21, 2019, Commerce received timely filed briefs and rebuttal briefs 
from the petitioners,\2\ Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation 
(Nippon Steel) and Tokyo

[[Page 31026]]

Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Tokyo Steel).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Japan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017; 83 FR 56813 
(November 14, 2018) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying 
Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).
    \2\ The petitioners are AK Steel Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA 
LLC, Nucor Corporation, SSAB Enterprises, LLC, Steel Dynamics, Inc., 
and United States Steel Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).
    \3\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products from Japan: Case Brief Nucor Corporation,'' dated December 
14, 2019; see also Nippon Steel's Letter, ``Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Flat Products from Japan: NSSMC's Case Brief,'' dated December 14, 
2019; Tokyo Steel's Letter, ``Case Brief of Tokyo Steel 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd: Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from 
Japan,'' dated December 14, 2019; Petitioners' Letter, ``Certain 
Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Japan: Rebuttal Brief Nucor 
Corporation,'' dated December 21, 2019; Nippon Steel's Letter, 
``Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Japan: NSSMC's 
Rebuttal Brief,'' dated December 21, 2019; and Tokyo Steel's Letter, 
``Rebuttal Brief of Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd: Certain Hot-
Rolled Steel Flat Products from Japan,'' dated December 21, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\4\ If the new 
deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's 
practice, the deadline will become the next business day. On March 28 
and May 22, 2019, we extended the deadline for the final results.\5\ 
The revised deadline for the final results is now June 21, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to the Record from Gary Taverman, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, performing the non-exclusive duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ``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.
    \5\ See Memoranda, ``Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from 
Japan: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2016-2017,'' dated March 28, and May 22, 
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These final results cover 20 producers and exporters of subject 
merchandise. Based on an analysis of the comments received, we have 
made changes to the weighted-average dumping margins determined for the 
respondents. The weighted-average dumping margins are listed in the 
``Final Results of Review'' section, below. Commerce conducted this 
review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act).

Scope of the Order 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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: Amended Final Affirmative 
Antidumping Determinations for Australia, the Republic of Korea, and 
the Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 67962 
(October 3, 2016) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise covered by the order is certain hot-rolled steel 
flat products. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, 
see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Japan; 2016-2017,'' dated 
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and 
Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, Commerce preliminarily determined that 
Hitachi Metals, Ltd. (Hitachi), Honda Trading Canada, Inc. (Honda), and 
Panasonic Corporation (Panasonic) each had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
subsequently confirmed these companies had no shipments.\8\ As no party 
has identified any record evidence which would call into question these 
preliminary findings with respect to Hitachi, Honda, or Panasonic, we 
continue to find that these companies made no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR. Accordingly, consistent with our practice, 
we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of subject 
merchandise produced by these three companies, but exported by other 
parties without their own rate, at the all-others rate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Memorandum, ``No Shipment Inquiry with Respect to the 
Company Below During the Period 03/22/2016 through 09/30/2017,'' 
dated October 23, 2018 (Public Version).
    \9\ See, e.g., Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal from the 
Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (Mitsui) also initially claimed no shipments 
during the POR.\10\ Based on information received from CBP,\11\ we 
stated in the Preliminary Results we would continue to include Mitsui 
with the companies under review and make a determination for the final 
results after soliciting more information and comments on Mitsui. On 
December 20, 2018, we placed U.S. entry documentation on the record and 
provided parties with an opportunity to comment. We also requested 
Mitsui to explain the apparent discrepancy between its claim of no 
shipments and the CBP information.\12\ Mitsui responded by stating that 
the documents provided to Commerce by CBP were consistent with the 
entry documentation which it had now retrieved by Mitsui & Co., (USA), 
Inc. (Mitsui USA), indicating that during the POR there was, in fact, 
one shipment of subject merchandise by Mitsui of Japan, sold to and 
entered by a U.S. customer.\13\ Mitsui added that it regretted its 
error, and that it was seeking to withdraw its certification.\14\ No 
other interested parties filed comments. Therefore, for the final 
results, we find that Mitsui had shipments of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Mitsui's Letter, ``Antidumping Administrative Review of 
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products: Mitsui No Shipment 
Notification,'' dated January 5, 2018.
    \11\ See Memorandum, ``No Shipment Inquiry with Respect to the 
Company Below During the Period 03/22/2016 through 09/30/2017,'' 
dated October 23, 2018 (Proprietary Version).
    \12\ See Memorandum, ``Placing U.S. Entry Documents on the 
Record,'' dated December 20, 2018.
    \13\ See Mitsui's Letter, ``Antidumping Administrative Review of 
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Japan: Mitsui Comment on 
U.S. Entry Documents Placed on the Record,'' dated December 27, 
2018.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted with this 
notice. The issues are identified in Appendix I 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 https://access.trade.gov and 
is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of 
the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet 
at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and 
Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from 
parties, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for both 
Nippon Steel and Tokyo Steel. For a discussion of these changes, see 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Rate for Non-Examined Companies

    The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for 
individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an 
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market 
economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for 
companies which were not selected for individual

[[Page 31027]]

examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of 
the Act, the all-others rate is normally ``an amount equal to the 
weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins 
established for exporters and producers individually investigated, 
excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined 
entirely {on the basis of facts available{time} .''
    For these final results, we calculated weighted-average dumping 
margins that are not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the 
basis of facts available for Nippon Steel and Tokyo Steel. Accordingly, 
Commerce has assigned to the companies not individually examined (see 
Appendix II, for a full list of these companies) a margin of 6.92 
percent, which is the weighted-average of Nippon Steel's and Tokyo 
Steel's calculated weighted-average dumping margins for these final 
results.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This rate is based on the weighted-average of the margins 
calculated for those companies selected for individual review using 
the publicly-ranged U.S. quantities. Because we cannot apply our 
normal methodology of calculating a weighted-average margin due to 
requests to protect business proprietary information, we find this 
rate to be the best proxy of the actual weighted-average margin 
determined for the mandatory respondents Nippon Steel and Tokyo 
Steel. See Memorandum, ``Calculation of the Review-Specific Average 
Rate for Non-Examined Companies,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice (Non-Examined Companies Rate Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of Review

    Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping 
margins exist for the period March 22, 2016 through September 30, 2017:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/producer                     Weighted-average dumping margin
                                                 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal                      7.64
 Corporation \16\.
                                 ---------------------------------------
Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd.\17\.....  3/22/2016 to 3/12/  3/13/2017 to 9/30/
                                   2017.               2017.
                                  6.92 \18\.........  7.64 \19\
                                 ---------------------------------------
Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co.,                     2.06
 Ltd.
Non-examined companies \20\.....                   6.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these final 
results of review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ We collapsed Nippon Steel & Sumikin Bussan Corporation with 
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation in the underlying 
investigation. See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from 
Japan: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value 
and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 15222 (March 22, 
2016) and accompanying PDM at 6-7.
    \17\ In the Preliminary Results we collapsed Nisshin Steel Co., 
Ltd. and Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation as of March 13, 
2017. See Preliminary Results PDM at 9. No parties commented on 
this, thus, we made no changes to this determination for these final 
results.
    \18\ Entries of subject merchandise produced/exported by Nisshin 
Steel Co., Ltd. made prior to March 13, 2017 are subject to the non-
examined companies' rate calculated in this administrative review. 
See Non-Examined Companies Rate Memorandum.
    \19\ Entries of subject merchandise produced/exported by Nisshin 
Steel Co., Ltd. made on/or after March 13, 2017 are subject to the 
AD rate assigned to Nippon Steel in this administrative review.
    \20\ See Appendix II, for a full list of these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the 
final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final 
results of this review in the Federal Register.
    Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we 
calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each 
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered 
value of the sales to each importer (or customer).\21\ Where Commerce 
calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total 
amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales 
quantity associated with those transactions, Commerce will direct CBP 
to assess importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates based on 
the resulting per-unit rates.\22\ Where an importer- (or customer-) 
specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis (i.e., 
0.50 percent), Commerce will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate 
duties at the time of liquidation.\23\ Where an importer- (or customer-
) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce 
will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we 
will assign an assessment rate based on the methodology described in 
the ``Rates for Non-Examined Companies'' section, above.
    Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR produced by Nippon Steel, Tokyo 
Steel, or the non-examined companies for which the producer did not 
know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will 
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if 
there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the 
transaction.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 
68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results 
of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) 
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed in 
these final results will be equal to the weighted-average dumping 
margins established in the final results of this review; (2) for 
merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this 
review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published 
for the most recently completed segment in which the company was 
reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or 
the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the

[[Page 31028]]

producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the 
most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of 
the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
producers or exporters will continue to be 5.58 percent,\26\ the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Japan: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 81 FR 53409 
(August 12, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of 
antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double 
antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 sanctionable 
violation.

Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 
351.221(b)(5) of Commerce's regulations.

    Dated: June 21, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Application of Partial Facts Available and Use of Adverse 
Inference
V. Final Determination of No Shipments
VI. Changes Since the Preliminary Results
VII. Discussion of the Issues

Tokyo Steel-Specific Issues
    Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should Apply Total AFA to Tokyo 
Steel for Failing to Explain Its Original Cost Reporting Methodology
    Comment 2: Correction of Error in Tokyo Steel's Margin 
Calculation
Nippon Steel-Specific Issues
    Comment 3: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Apply Partial AFA 
to Certain Nippon Steel's Affiliated Downstream Resales in the Home 
Market
    Comment 4: Whether Commerce Should Grant a Constructed Export 
Price Offset to Nippon Steel
    Comment 5: Processing Expenses Incurred by Nippon Steel's 
Affiliated Trading Company in Japan
    Comment 6: Nippon Steel's Failure to Submit Full Translations of 
Requested Financial Statement
    Comment 7: Nippon Steel's Failure to Provide a Separate Section 
A Response for Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd
    Comment 8: Nippon Steel Refused to Report All the HM Sales in 
the Window Period that Are Necessary for the Margin Calculations
    Comment 9: Nippon Steel Did Not Report Nisshin's Sales and Costs 
for the Entire POR
    Comment 10: Whether Nippon Steel Failed to Report All of its 
U.S. Sales
    Comment 11: Nisshin's G&A Expenses Ratio Calculation
    Comment 12: Whether Nippon Steel Failed to Provide a Usable 
Section E Response
    Comment 13: Whether Nippon Steel Reported Incorrect ``Mark-up'' 
Rates
    Comment 14: Whether Nippon Steel Failed to Provide the Required 
Information on the Affiliated Suppliers of Major Inputs
    Comment 15: Whether Nippon Steel Failed to Provide Requested 
Information on Affiliate's Assets
    Comment 16: Whether Commerce Should Revise Its Major Input Rule 
Adjustment to Steelscape LLC's Costs Based on Steelscape Washington 
LLC's Full Cost of Production
    Comment 17: Whether Commerce Should Revise the Reported G&A 
Expense Ratio for Steelscape LLC
VIII. Recommendation

Appendix II

List of Companies Not Individually Examined

Hanwa Co., Ltd.
JFE Steel Corporation \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ We collapsed JFE Shoji Trade Corporation with JFE Steel 
Corporation in the investigation. See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products from Japan: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 15222 
(March 22, 2016) and accompanying PDM at 8-9 unchanged in Hot-Rolled 
Japan Final Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

JFE Shoji Trade America
Kanematsu Corporation
Kobe Steel, Ltd.
Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
Miyama Industry Co., Ltd.
Nippon Steel & Sumikin Logistics Co., Ltd.
Okaya & Co. Ltd.
Saint-Gobain KK
Shinsho Corporation
Sumitomo Corporation
Suzukaku Corporation
Toyota Tsusho Corporation Nagoya

[FR Doc. 2019-13863 Filed 6-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P