[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34848-34851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12316]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-844]


Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019-2020

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

[[Page 34849]]

SUMMARY: The U.S. 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, 2019, through October 31, 2020.

DATES: Applicable June 8, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Lindgren or Kyle Clahane, 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 or (202) 482-5449, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 3, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Results for 
this review in the Federal Register and invited interested parties to 
comment on those results.\1\ From January 2 to February 11, 2022, 
Commerce received case briefs on behalf of Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. 
(Deacero), Grupo Simec,\2\ Sidertul S.A. de C.V. (Sidertul), and Grupo 
Acerero S.A. de C.V. (Grupo Acerero). From February 18 to 24, 2022, the 
petitioners \3\ and Grupo Simec submitted rebuttal briefs and 
comments.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019-2020, 86 FR 
68632 (December 3, 2021) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying 
Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
    \2\ Commerce has previously collapsed the following entities 
into a single entity, collectively, Grupo Simec: 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., Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final 
Determination of No Shipments; 2018-2019, 86 FR 50527, 50528 
(September 9, 2021).
    \3\ The petitioners are the Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its 
individual members, Nucor Corporation; Ameristeel US Inc.; 
Commercial Metals Company; Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.; and 
Byer Steel Corporation.
    \4\ See Memorandum, ``Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from 
Mexico: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019-2020,'' dated 
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and 
Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce extended the deadline for the final results by 27 days on 
March 7, 2022, and by an additional 33 days on April 22, 2022.\5\ The 
deadline for the final results of this review is now June 1, 2022. For 
a complete description of the events that occurred since the 
Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum, ``Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from 
Mexico: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019-2020; Extension 
of Deadline for Final Results,'' dated March 7, 2022; see also 
``Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2019-2020; Extension of Deadline for Final 
Results,'' dated April 22, 2022.
    \6\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Antidumping 
Duty Order, 79 FR 65925 (November 6, 2014) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The product covered by the Order is rebar 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 at 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 https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete 
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly 
at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our review of the record and comments received from 
interested parties regarding the Preliminary Results, we made certain 
changes to the margin calculation for Deacero. For a discussion of the 
issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 3 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    We continue to find that the application of facts available with an 
adverse inference (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), is warranted in determining 
Grupo Simec's dumping margin because it withheld information regarding 
its sales and cost reconciliations and potential affiliations, 
incorrectly reported control numbers, and provided unreliable and 
unusable sales and cost databases.\9\ Therefore, as in the Preliminary 
Results, as AFA, we assigned Grupo Simec a dumping margin of 66.70 
percent. See the Issues and Decision Memorandum for further 
discussion.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Preliminary Results.
    \10\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; see also 
Memorandum, ``Grupo Simec Questionnaire Deficiencies Analysis,'' 
dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce is not required to corroborate any dumping margin applied 
in a separate segment of the same proceeding.\11\ Because the 66.70 
percent rate was applied in a separate segment of this proceeding, 
Commerce does not need to corroborate the rate in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See section 776(c)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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.
    When the rates for individually examined companies are all zero, de 
minimis, or based entirely on facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of 
the Act provides that Commerce may use ``any reasonable method'' to 
establish the all-others rate.
    We calculated a zero percent dumping margin for one of the 
mandatory respondents in this review, Deacero, and we based the dumping 
margin on facts available with an adverse inference for the other 
mandatory respondent, Grupo Simec. Therefore, we assigned the companies 
not selected for examination a dumping margin equal to the simple 
average of the dumping margins for Deacero and Grupo Simec, consistent 
with the guidance in section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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 Review

    Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping 
margins exist for the period November 1, 2019, through October 31, 
2020:

[[Page 34850]]



 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
              Producer and/or exporter                  dumping margin
                                                          (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deacero S.A.P.I de C.V.............................                 0.00
Grupo Simec (Aceros Especiales Simec Tlaxcala, S.A.                66.70
 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.).....................
Grupo Acerero S.A. de C.V..........................                33.35
Sidertul S.A. de C.V...............................                33.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Assessment Rate

    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. Commerce intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 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). If a timely summons is 
filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment 
instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until 
the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has 
expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 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 entered 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. Commerce's ``automatic assessment'' will apply to 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Deacero for 
which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary 
(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the 
United States. In such instances, 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.
    Because we are applying total AFA to Grupo Simec, we will instruct 
CBP to apply an assessment rate to all entries Grupo Simec produced 
and/or exported equal to the dumping margin indicated above in the 
``Final Results of Review.'' Further, 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.''

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.\13\ These cash deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 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: June 1, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
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

[[Page 34851]]

    Comment 1: Whether Grupo Simec Should Have Been Granted More 
Time to Cure Its Questionnaire Deficiencies
    Comment 2: Whether Grupo Simec Should Have Been Issued Another 
Supplemental Questionnaire
    Comment 3: Whether Commerce Correctly Rejected Grupo Simec's 
Untimely Submission of Additional Information
    Comment 4: Whether Commerce Should Have Applied AFA to Grupo 
Simec
    Comment 5: Whether Commerce Selected the Correct AFA Rate To 
Assign to Grupo Simec
    Comment 6: Whether Deacero's Margin Programming Contained 
Clerical Errors
    Comment 7: Whether Commerce's Methodology To Determine the Rate 
for Non-Selected Respondents Is Reasonable
VI. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2022-12316 Filed 6-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P