[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15112-15114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05488]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-580-879]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of 
Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2017

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Dongbu 
Steel Co., Ltd/Dongbu Incheon Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu) received 
countervailable subsidies that are above de minimis, and that Hyundai 
Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) received countervailable subsidies that 
are de minimis. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2017 through 
December 31, 2017.

DATES: Applicable March 17, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Jun Jack Zhao, 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) 482-2371 or (202) 482-1396, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background

    Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this review on 
September 12, 2019.\1\ In addition, Commerce issued a post-preliminary 
determination on the upstream allegation on electricity on February 5, 
2020.\2\ For a history of events that occurred since the Preliminary 
Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the 
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, and Rescission of Review, in Part; 2017, 84 
FR 48107 (September 12, 2019) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying 
Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).
    \2\ See Memorandum, ``Upstream Subsidy on Electricity,'' dated 
February 5, 2020 (Upstream Analysis Memorandum).
    \3\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Final Results of the 2017 Administrative Review of the 
Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel 
Products from the Republic of Korea (Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
or IDM), dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 30, 2019, we postponed the final results of this review 
until March 10, 2020.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum, ``Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 
from the Republic of Korea: Extension of Deadline for Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,'' dated December 30, 
2019.

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

[[Page 15113]]

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain corrosion-resistant 
steel products. For a complete description of the scope of this order, 
see attachment to the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in interested parties' case 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 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 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 the comments received from interested parties and record 
information, we have made changes to the net subsidy rates calculated 
for Dongbu and for those companies not selected for individual review. 
The changes made for Hyundai Steel did not result in a change to its 
net subsidy rate. For a discussion of these issues, see the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.

Methodology

    Commerce conducted this 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 government-provided financial contribution that gives 
rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is 
specific.\5\ For a description of the methodology underlying all of 
Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies Not Selected for Individual Review

    The statute and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the 
establishment of rates to be applied to companies not selected for 
individual examination where Commerce limits its examination in an 
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. 
However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected 
companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 
705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the 
all-others rate in an investigation.
    Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act instructs Commerce, as a general 
rule, to calculate an all-others rate equal to the weighted average of 
the countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and 
producers individually investigated, excluding any zero, de minimis, or 
rates based entirely on facts available. In this review, the only 
subsidy rate above de minimis is the rate calculated for Dongbu. 
Therefore, for the companies for which a review was requested that were 
not selected as mandatory respondents, we are applying the subsidy rate 
calculated for Dongbu.

Final Results of Administrative Review

    In accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(5), we determine the total estimated net countervailable 
subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 
to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Net countervailable subsidy
                 Company                    rate  (percent ad valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd./Dongbu Incheon     7.16
 Steel Co., Ltd.
Hyundai Steel Company...................  0.44 (de minimis).
Bukook Steel Co., Ltd...................  7.16
CJ Korea Express........................  7.16
DK Dongshin Co., Ltd....................  7.16
Dongbu Express..........................  7.16
Hongyi (HK) Hardware Products Co., Ltd..  7.16
Hyundai Glovis Co., Ltd.................  7.16
Jeil Sanup Co., Ltd.....................  7.16
POSCO...................................  7.16
POSCO C&C...............................  7.16
POSCO Daewoo Corp.......................  7.16
POSCO P&S...............................  7.16
Sejung Shipping Co., Ltd................  7.16
SeAH Steel..............................  7.16
Seil Steel Co., Ltd.....................  7.16
SK Networks Co., Ltd....................  7.16
Soon Hong Trading Co., Ltd..............  7.16
Taisan Construction Co., Ltd............  7.16
TCC Steel Co., Ltd......................  7.16
Young Sun Steel Co......................  7.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue 
appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 
days after publication of these final results to liquidate shipments of 
subject merchandise. Because we have calculated a de minimis 
countervailable subsidy rate for Hyundai Steel, we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to countervailing 
duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. We will instruct CBP to 
liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by 
Dongbu and the above listed companies, entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 
2017, at the ad valorem rates listed above for each respective company.
    In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Ac, we intend also 
to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing 
duties, in the amounts shown above, with the exception of Hyundai 
Steel, 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. Because the countervailable subsidy rate 
for Hyundai Steel is de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to collect 
cash deposits at a rate of zero for Hyundai Steel for all shipments of 
the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final 
results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms, we 
will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated 
countervailing duties at the most-recent company-specific or all-others 
rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. 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 responsibility 
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 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations

[[Page 15114]]

and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    These final results are issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 10, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. List of Issues
III. Background
IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Results
V. Scope of the Order
VI. Period of Review
VII. Subsidies Valuation Information
VIII. Analysis of Programs
IX. Discussion of Comments
    Comment 1: Whether the Electricity for LTAR Upstream Subsidy 
Allegation Confers a Benefit
    Comment 2: Whether the Subsidy Rate for the Industrial 
Technology Innovation Promotion Act (ITIPA) Grants Was Improperly 
Calculated
    Comment 3: Whether Tax Credit Programs Under the RSTA Meet the 
Specificity Requirement
    Comment 4: Whether Tax Benefits Should Not Be Adjusted for the 
Special Rural Development Tax
    Comment 5: Whether the Trading of Demand Response Resource 
Program is Countervailable
    Comment 6: Whether the Modal Shift Program Confers a 
Countervailable Benefit
    Comment 7: Whether the Non-Government Banks Were Entrusted or 
Directed to Provide a Financial Contribution to Dongbu through the 
Debt Restructuring Program
    Comment 8: Whether the Restructuring of Dongbu's Existing Loans 
by GOK-controlled Banks Provided a Financial Contribution to Dongbu
    Comment 9: Whether the Restructured Loans Provided to Dongbu 
were Specific
    Comment 10: Whether Commerce Should Use the Interest Rates from 
Loans provided by Commercial Banks Participating in the Creditor 
Bank Committee as Benchmarks
    Comment 11: Whether Dongbu Is Equityworthy and the Debt-to-
Equity Swaps should be Countervailed
    Comment 12: Whether Commerce Correctly Calculated the Benefit to 
Dongbu from KDB Short-Term Discounted Loans for Export Receivables 
Program
X. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2020-05488 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P