[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50527-50529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19406]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-844]


Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No 
Shipments; 2018-2019

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that steel 
concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Mexico was sold in the United 
States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), 
November 1, 2018, through October 31, 2019. In addition, Commerce 
determines that Ternium Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium) had no shipments 
of subject merchandise during the POR.

DATES: Applicable September 9, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Lindgren, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1671.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 23, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Results.\1\ 
On April 22, 2021, Commerce received case briefs on behalf of the 
petitioners \2\ and Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. (Deacero). On April 29, 
2021, the petitioners and Deacero submitted rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary 
Determination of No Shipments; 2018-2019, 86 FR 15458 (March 23, 
2021) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum.
    \2\ The petitioners are the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC) 
and its individual members, Nucor Corporation, Ameristeel US Inc., 
Commercial Metals Company, Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. and 
Byer Steel Corporation (the petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce extended the deadline for the final results by 58 days on 
June 22, 2021.\3\ The deadline for the final results of this review is 
now September 17, 2021. For a complete description of the events that 
occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum, ``Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from 
Mexico: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2018-2019; Extension 
of Deadline for Final Results,'' dated June 22, 2021.
    \4\ See Memorandum, ``Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from 
Mexico: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2018-2019,'' dated 
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and 
Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is steel concrete reinforcing bar 
from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope, see the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties 
raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 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. In addition, a complete 
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly 
at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html/.

Determination of No Shipments

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received a no-shipment 
claim from Ternium. In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily 
determined that Ternium had no shipments during the POR. We received no 
comments from interested parties with respect to this claim. Therefore, 
we continue to find that Ternium had no shipments during the POR.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from 
interested parties, we: (1) Corrected an error in Commerce's dumping 
margin programming when calculating the weighted-average dumping margin 
for Deacero; (2) used a revised U.S. sales database; (3) updated the 
date assigned to U.S. sales without a reported payment date; and (4) 
updated our calculation of the cost of scrap.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. at 2-3 and Comments 4, 5 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rates for Companies Not Selected for Individual Examination

    The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not 
selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an 
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act). Generally, Commerce looks to section 
735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the 
all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the 
rate for companies which we did not examine in an administrative 
review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act establishes a preference to 
avoid using rates which are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on 
facts available (FA) in calculating an all-others rate. Accordingly, 
Commerce's practice in administrative reviews has been to average the 
weighted-average dumping margins for the companies selected for 
individual examination in the annual review, excluding rates that are 
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA.\6\ For these final results 
of review, we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for Deacero 
that is above de minimis and not based entirely on FA. Therefore, 
consistent with our practice, we have assigned the companies not 
selected for individual examination the weighted-average dumping margin 
calculated for Deacero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in 
Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of the Review

    Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping 
margins exist for the period November 1, 2018, through October 31, 
2019:

[[Page 50528]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
              Producer and/or exporter                  dumping margin
                                                          (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deacero S.A.P.I de C.V.\7\.........................                 4.93
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the       ...................
 Following Companies:
    Grupo Simec (Aceros Especiales Simec Tlaxcala,                  4.93
     S.A. de C.V.; Compania Siderurgica del
     Pacifico S.A. de C.V.; Fundiciones de Acero
     Estructurales, S.A. de C.V.; Grupo Chant
     S.A.P.I. de C.V.; Operadora de Perfiles
     Sigosa, S.A. de C.V.; Orge S.A. de C.V.;
     Perfiles Comerciales Sigosa, S.A. de C.V.;
     RRLC S.A.P.I. de C.V.; Sider[uacute]rgicos
     Noroeste, S.A. de C.V.; Siderurgica del
     Occidente y Pacifico S.A. de C.V.; Simec
     International 6 S.A. de C.V.; Simec
     International, S.A. de C.V.; Simec
     International 7 S.A. de C.V.; and Simec
     International 9 S.A. de C.V.)\8\..............
AceroMex S.A.......................................                 4.93
Arcelor Mittal.....................................                 4.93
ArcelorMittal Celaya...............................                 4.93
ArcelorMittal Cordoba S.A. de C.V..................                 4.93
ArcelorMittal Lazaro Cardenas S.A. de C.V..........                 4.93
Cia Siderurgica de California, S.A. de C.V.........                 4.93
Compania Siderurgica de California, S.A. de C.V....                 4.93
Grupo Villacero S.A. de C.V........................                 4.93
Industrias CH......................................                 4.93
Siderurgica Tultitlan S.A. de C.V..................                 4.93
Talleres y Aceros, S.A. de C.V.....................                 4.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This also applies to any entries made under the name DE 
ACERO SA. DE CV. While the petitioner requested a review of both DE 
ACERO SA. DE CV. and Deacero, Commerce has previously determined 
that DE ACERO SA. DE CV. is the same company as Deacero and 
therefore, we are treating DE ACERO SA. DE CV. as the same as 
Deacero. See, e.g., Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018, 
85 FR 71053 (November 6, 2020) (2017-2018 AR Mexico Rebar Final), at 
71053-71054.
    \8\ Commerce has previously collapsed the following entities 
into a single entity: Grupo Simec; Aceros Especiales Simec Tlaxcala, 
S.A. de C.V.; Compania Siderurgica del Pacifico S.A. de C.V.; 
Fundiciones de Acero Estructurales, S.A. de C.V.; Grupo Chant 
S.A.P.I. de C.V.; Operadora de Perfiles Sigosa, S.A. de C.V.; Orge 
S.A. de C.V.; Perfiles Comerciales Sigosa, S.A. de C.V.; RRLC 
S.A.P.I. de C.V.; Sider[uacute]rgicos Noroeste, S.A. de C.V.; 
Siderurgica del Occidente y Pacifico S.A. de C.V.; Simec 
International 6 S.A. de C.V.; Simec International, S.A. de C.V.; 
Simec International 7 S.A. de C.V.; and Simec International 9 S.A. 
de C.V. See, e.g., 2017-2018 AR Mexico Rebar Final, 85 FR at 71053-
71054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries covered by this review.
    Because Deacero's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de 
minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), Commerce has calculated 
importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates. We calculated 
importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates by aggregating the 
total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales of each 
importer and dividing each of these amounts by the total sales value 
associated with those sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-
average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 
CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or 
de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries 
without regard to antidumping duties.
    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by 
Deacero where the producer did not know its merchandise was destined 
for the United States, or for entries associated with Ternium, who had 
no shipments during the POR, we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
unreviewed suspended entries, consistent with the reseller policy, at 
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 
68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The assessment rate for antidumping duties for each of the 
companies not selected for individual examination, will be equal to the 
weighted-average dumping margin identified above in the Final Results 
of Review.
    Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier 
than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this 
review in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the 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 by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies 
identified above in the Final Results of Review will be equal to the 
company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the 
final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise 
exported by a company not covered in this administrative review but 
covered in a completed prior segment of the proceeding, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published 
for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review or completed prior 
segment of this proceeding but the producer is, the cash deposit rate 
will be the company-specific 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 20.58 percent, the rate established in 
the investigation of this proceeding.\10\ These cash deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 54967 (September 15, 
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Commerce's presumption that reimbursement 
of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent

[[Page 50529]]

assessment of double antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 
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 
the proceeding. 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 
the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) 
and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Dated: September 1, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

    List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Results
V. Discussion of the Issues
    Comment 1: Whether to Grant Deacero a CEP Offset
    Comment 2: Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available to U.S. 
Freight Expenses
    Comment 3: Whether Section 232 Duties Should be Deducted from 
U.S. Price
    Comment 4: Whether to Correct for a Macro Programming Error
    Comment 5: Whether to Rely on Deacero's Revised U.S. Sales 
Database
    Comment 6: Whether to Include Certain Items in the Calculation 
of Scrap Costs
    Comment 7: Whether to Make Adjustments to the Scrap Offset 
Calculation
VI. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2021-19406 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P