[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25844-25845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-864]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Notice of 
Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results

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

SUMMARY: On April 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 
issued its final judgment in Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United 
States, Court no. 19-00044, sustaining the Department of Commerce 
(Commerce)'s second remand results pertaining to the administrative 
review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain corrosion-
resistant steel products (CORE) from India covering the period November 
6, 2015, through December 31, 2016. Commerce is notifying the public 
that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final 
results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the 
final results with respect to the countervailable subsidy rate assigned 
to Uttam Galva Steels Limited/ Uttam Value Steels Limited/Uttam Galva 
Metallics Limited (collectively, Uttam Galva).

DATES: Applicable May 9, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Neuman, 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 25, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the 
2015-2016 CVD administrative review of CORE from India.\1\ Commerce 
found that Uttam Galva failed to properly report its affiliation with 
Lloyds Steels Industry Limited (LSIL).\2\ Therefore, Commerce applied 
total adverse facts available (AFA) pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) to Uttam Galva.\3\ 
Commerce constructed an AFA rate by selecting the highest calculated 
rate for the identical, or a similar/comparable, program for each of 
the subsidy programs under review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015-
2016, 84 FR 11053 (March 25, 2019) (Final Results), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 4.
    \3\ Id. Commerce found, as AFA, that LSIL was cross-owned with 
Uttam Galva.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Uttam Galva appealed Commerce's Final Results with respect to the 
application of AFA and Commerce's construction of the total AFA rate. 
On February 6, 2020, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce, 
sustaining Commerce's decision to apply AFA to Uttam Galva for failing 
to disclose its affiliation with LSIL and granting Commerce's request 
for a voluntary remand to reconsider the rate assigned to the Market 
Access Initiative Program and four additional programs.\5\ The CIT 
directed Commerce to consider Uttam Galva's argument that 20 other 
subsidy programs should not be included in the total AFA rate and to 
further explain its rate selections.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 
19-00044, Slip Op. 20-15 (CIT February 6, 2020).
    \6\ Id. at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its First Remand Redetermination, issued in May 2020, Commerce 
adjusted Uttam Galva's total AFA rate to reflect the modifications for 
the five programs that were the subject of its voluntary remand request 
and continued to find that the other 20 programs were properly included 
in the AFA rate.\7\ Specifically, Commerce modified the AFA rate for 
the Market Access Initiative program from 16.63 percent to 6.06 percent 
and removed the following programs from Uttam Galva's total AFA rate: 
(1) The Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration; (2) State Government of Uttar Pradesh (SGUP) Exemption 
from Entry Tax for the Iron and Steel Industry; (3) SGUP Long-Term 
Interest Free Loans Equivalent to the Amount of Value-Added Tax and 
Central Sales Tax Paid; and (4) SGUP's Interest Free Loans under the 
SGUP Development Promotion Rules 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Uttam Galva 
Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 19-00044, Slip Op. 20-15 
(CIT February 6, 2020), dated May 6, 2020 (First Remand 
Redetermination) at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT remanded for a second time, sustaining Commerce's 
determination to include the 20 disputed programs in Uttam Galva's AFA 
rate calculation, and instructing Commerce to further explain its 
decision to apply total AFA to Uttam Galva in this review for Uttam 
Galva's failure to properly report its affiliation with LSIL when 
Commerce applied partial AFA to respondent JSW Steel Limited (JSW) in 
the investigation of

[[Page 25845]]

this proceeding for JSW's failure to properly report an affiliate.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 
19-00044, Slip Op. 20-151 (CIT October 29, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Second Remand Redetermination, issued in December 2020, 
Commerce explained that application of total AFA to Uttam Galva is 
warranted in this review and consistent with Commerce's total AFA 
practice.\9\ The application of partial AFA to JSW was based on a 
distinct set of facts and, although the application of AFA to JSW was 
similarly based on the company respondent's failure to properly report 
an affiliated entity, it is not determinative of the treatment of Uttam 
Galva in this segment because the circumstances surrounding the AFA 
determinations for each company were different.\10\ The CIT sustained 
Commerce's final redetermination.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Uttam Galva 
Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 19-00044, Slip Op. 20-151 
(CIT October 29, 2020), dated December 22, 2020 (Second Remand 
Redetermination).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 
19-00044, Slip Op. 21-48 (CIT April 29, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\12\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\13\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, 
pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must publish 
a notice of court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce 
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's April 29, 2021, judgment 
constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with 
Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment 
of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \13\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending 
its Final Results with respect to Uttam Galva as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Subsidy rate
                 Manufacturer/exporter                     (percent ad
                                                             valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uttam Galva Steels Limited/Uttam Value Steels Limited/           554.26
 Uttam Galva Metallics Limited/Lloyds Steels Industry
 Limited...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, 
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to 
instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of 
subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Uttam Galva at the 
subsidy rate listed above in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b).

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 6, 2021.
James Maeder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2021-09943 Filed 5-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P