[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59353-59355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23732]



[[Page 59353]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-112 and C-570-113]


Certain Collated Steel Staples From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Affirmative Determinations of Critical Circumstances 
in the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines 
that critical circumstances exist with respect to certain imports of 
certain collated steel staples (collated staples) from the People's 
Republic of China (China).

DATES: Applicable November 4, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer (CVD) or Sergio 
Balbontin (AD), AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and 
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-9068 or (202) 482-6478, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 6, 2019, Commerce received antidumping (AD) and 
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of collated 
staples from China filed in proper form on behalf of Kyocera Senco 
Industrial Tools, Inc. (the petitioner).\1\ On July 3, 2019, Commerce 
initiated the AD and CVD investigations of collated staples from 
China.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Certain Collated Steel 
Staples from Korea, the People's Republic of China, and Taiwan,'' 
dated June 6, 2019 (the Petition).
    \2\ See Certain Collated Steel Staples from the People's 
Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 
84 FR 31840 (July 3, 2019); and Certain Collated Steel Staples from 
the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: 
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 84 FR 31833 (July 
3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the AD investigation, Commerce selected Tianjin Jin Xin Sheng 
Long Metal Products Co., Ltd. (Tianjin JXSL) and Tianjin Hweshcun 
Fasteners Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Tianjin Hweshcun) as mandatory 
respondents for individual examination.\3\ In the CVD investigation, 
Commerce selected Hai Sheng Xin Group Co., Ltd. (Xin Group), Zhejiang 
Best Nail Industrial Co., Ltd. (Best Nail),\4\ and Ningbo Deli 
Stationery (Ningbo Deli) as mandatory respondents for individual 
examination.\5\ On September 17, 2019, the petitioner alleged that 
critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of collated 
staples from China, 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.\6\ On 
October 11 and 15, 2019, the petitioner filed a supplement to its 
critical circumstances allegation for the AD and CVD investigations, 
respectively.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum, ``Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 
Collated Steel Staples from the People's Republic of China: 
Respondent Selection,'' dated July 30, 2019.
    \4\ See Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation of 
Certain Collated Steel Staples from the People's Republic of China: 
Respondent Selection,'' dated July 26, 2019.
    \5\ See Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation of 
Certain Collated Steel Staples from the People's Republic of China: 
Additional Respondent Selection,'' dated August 19, 2019.
    \6\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Certain Collated Steel Staples 
from the People's Republic of China: Allegation of Critical 
Circumstances,'' dated September 17, 2019 (Critical Circumstances 
Allegation).
    \7\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Certain Collated Steel Staples 
from the People's Republic of China: Supplement to Critical 
Circumstances Allegation {AD{time} ,'' dated October 11, 2019 
(Petitioner Supplement to AD Allegation); see also Petitioner's 
Letter, ``Certain Collated Steel Staples from the People's Republic 
of China: Supplement to Critical Circumstances Allegation 
{CVD{time} ,'' dated October 15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), if the petitioner 
submits an allegation of critical circumstances more than 20 days 
before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, Commerce 
must issue a preliminary finding whether there is a reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist by no later than 
the date of the preliminary determination.\8\ In these AD and CVD 
investigations, the petitioner requested that Commerce issue 
preliminary critical circumstances determinations on an expedited 
basis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The preliminary determination for the AD investigation is 
currently due no later than November 19, 2019, and the preliminary 
determination for the CVD investigation is currently due no later 
than November 4, 2019.
    \9\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce, upon receipt 
of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will preliminarily 
determine that critical circumstances exist in CVD investigations if 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A) The alleged 
countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement of the World Trade 
Organization; and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject 
merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 733(e)(1) of the 
Act provides that Commerce, upon receipt of a timely 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.
    Sections 351.206(h)(2) and (i) of Commerce's regulations provide 
that imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the 
``relatively short period'' to be considered ``massive'' and 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) 
and ending at least three months later. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Circumstances Analysis

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, Commerce considered the evidence currently on 
the record of the CVD investigation. Specifically, as reflected in the 
initiation checklist, the following subsidy programs, alleged in the 
Petition and supported by information reasonably available to the 
petitioner, appear to be export contingent, which would render them 
inconsistent with the SCM Agreement: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See CVD Initiation Checklist: Certain Collated Steel 
Staples from the People's Republic of China, dated June 26, 2019.

 Export Loans from Chinese State-Owned Banks
 Export Seller's Credit
 Export Buyer's Credit
 Export Credit Insurance Subsidies
 Export Credit Guarantees

[[Page 59354]]

 Subsidies for the Development of Famous Brands and China World 
Top Brands
 SME International Market Exploration Fund
 Export Assistance Grants
 Export Interest Subsidies for Enterprises Located in Zhejiang 
Province

    Therefore, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that alleged subsidies in the 
CVD investigation are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.

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 subject merchandise from the country 
in question in the United States and current orders imposed by other 
countries regarding imports of the same merchandise. However, in the 
Critical Circumstances Allegation, the petitioner did not provide 
information on the history of dumping.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that 
exporters were selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value 
pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, we typically consider 
the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in the 
petition.\13\ Commerce has found margins of 15 percent or more (for 
constructed export price) to 25 percent or more (for export price) to 
be sufficient for this purpose.\14\ The dumping margins of 119.37 
percent and 122.55 percent alleged in the AD Petition significantly 
exceed the 15 to 25 percent threshold.\15\ Therefore, on that basis, we 
preliminarily conclude importers knew, or should have known, that 
exporters in China were selling at less than fair value (LTFV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 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), 
and 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).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Certain Collated Steel Staples 
from China: Petition Supplement,'' dated June 14, 2019, at Exhibit 
9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew, or should have known, that 
there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports 
pursuant section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, Commerce normally will 
look to the preliminary injury determination of the International Trade 
Commission (ITC).\16\ If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of 
material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, Commerce will determine 
that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge that 
material injury is likely by reason of such imports. In these 
investigations, the ITC found that there is a ``reasonable indication'' 
of material injury to the domestic industry because of the imported 
subject merchandise.\17\ Therefore, the ITC's preliminary injury 
determination in the AD investigation is sufficient to impute importer 
knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Investigations of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: 
Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 19219, 
19220 (April 26, 2017) (Softwood Lumber from Canada Preliminary 
Critical Circumstances Determination), unchanged in Certain Softwood 
Lumber Products from Canada: Final Affirmative Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 51806, 51807-08 (November 8, 2017) 
(Softwood Lumber from Canada Final AD Determination).
    \17\ See Certain Collated Steel Staples from China, Korea, and 
Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-626 and 731-TA-1452-1454 
(Preliminary), 84 FR 35884 (July 25, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massive Imports

    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 
733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, 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).\18\ 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Softwood Lumber from Canada Preliminary Critical 
Circumstances Determination, 82 FR at 19220, unchanged in Softwood 
Lumber from Canada Final AD Determination, 82 FR at 51807-08.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, to determine preliminarily whether there has been a 
massive surge in imports for each participating mandatory respondent 
which provided shipment data, including Tianjin JXSL, Commerce compared 
the total volume of shipments from June 2019 through August 2019, the 
comparison period (i.e., all months for which shipment data was 
available), with the preceding three-month period of March 2019 through 
May 2019, the base period. Although the petitioner argued that Commerce 
should use a two-month comparison period for its analysis with respect 
to Tianjin JXSL,\20\ our preference is to use at least a three-month 
comparison period.\21\ There is no such evidence on the record of the 
AD or CVD proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Petitioner Supplement to AD Allegation at 6-8.
    \21\ See 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the CVD investigation, for all others, Commerce compared 
Global Trade Atlas (GTA) data for the period June 2019 through August 
2019 with the preceding three-month period of March 2019 through May 
2019,\22\ after subtracting from the GTA data shipments reported by the 
mandatory respondents which provided such data. Similarly, regarding 
the AD investigation, for non-individually examined companies 
requesting separate rate status, we performed the same comparison. For 
those respondents in either the CVD or AD investigation that are not 
participating in the investigation, we preliminarily determine, on the 
basis of adverse facts available,\23\ that there has been a massive 
surge in imports. Accordingly, based on our analysis of the information 
on the record, we preliminarily determine that certain producers/
exporters of collated staples from China had massive surges in 
imports.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Commerce gathered GTA data under the following harmonized 
tariff schedule number: 8305.20.00.
    \23\ See section 776 of the Act.
    \24\ See Memorandum, ``Certain Collated Steel Staples from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Massive Imports Analysis,'' 
dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we 
preliminarily determine in the AD investigation that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of collated staples from 
China shipped by Tianjin Hweshcun and all other producers and exporters 
except Tianjin JXSL. Additionally, we preliminarily determine in the 
CVD investigation that critical circumstances

[[Page 59355]]

exist with respect to imports of collated staples from China shipped by 
Best Nail, Xin Group, Ningbo Deli, and all other producers and 
exporters.

Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will issue our final determinations concerning critical 
circumstances when we issue our final CVD and AD determinations. All 
interested parties will have the opportunity to address these 
determinations in case briefs to be submitted after the issuance of the 
preliminary CVD and AD determinations. Commerce will specify the 
applicable deadlines at a later date.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we will 
notify the ITC of these preliminary determinations of critical 
circumstances.

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 
imports from all producers and exporters of collated staples from 
China, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that 
countervailable subsidies have been provided to these same producers/
exporters at above de minimis rates, 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. The suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, because we have 
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to 
imports from certain producers and exporters of collated staples from 
China, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that sales 
at LTFV have been made by these same producers/exporters at above de 
minimis rates, 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 LTFV 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.

Notification to Interested Parties

    These determinations are issued and published pursuant to section 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).

    Dated: October 24, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-23732 Filed 11-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P