[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73331-73333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25984]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1296 (Final)]


Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Turkey; Denial of Request To 
Institute a Section 751(b) Review; Denial of Request To Institute a 
Section 751(b) Review or Reconsideration Proceeding Concerning the 
Commission's Affirmative Determination in Investigation No. 731-TA-1296 
(Final), Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Turkey

AGENCY:  United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it has declined to 
institute a review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(the Act) or grant reconsideration regarding the Commission's 
affirmative determination in investigation No. 731-TA-1296 (Final).

DATES:  Applicable: November 22, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Douglas Corkran (202-205-3057), 
Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need 
special

[[Page 73332]]

assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the 
Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning 
the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server 
(http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this matter may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Background.--In September 2016, the Commission determined that a 
U.S. industry was materially injured by reason of imports of hot-rolled 
steel flat products from Turkey found by the U.S. Department of 
Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair 
value (81 FR 66996, Sept. 29, 2016). Turkish producer and exporter 
Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. (Erdemir) did not appeal the 
Commission's final affirmative material injury determination in the 
antidumping duty investigation with respect to Turkey.
    On September 1, 2021, Commerce initiated, and the ITC instituted, 
five-year reviews of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel 
flat products from Turkey (86 FR 48983 & 86 FR 49057, Sept. 1, 2021). 
On December 6, 2021, the Commission determined to conduct a full five-
year review of the order (87 FR 3123, Jan. 20, 2022).
    On September 10, 2021, the Commission received a request from 
Erdemir to review its affirmative determination in investigation No. 
731-TA-1296 (Final) pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(b)). The request alleged there have been significant changed 
circumstances since the issuance of the Commission's 2016 
determination. Specifically, Erdemir alleged that Commerce's 
recalculation of Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S.'s (Colakoglu) antidumping 
duty margin to zero percent and Colakoglu's consequent exclusion from 
the antidumping duty order as a result of judicial review constitute 
significantly changed circumstances from those in existence at the time 
of the original investigation. According to Erdemir, the exclusion of 
Colakoglu from the antidumping duty order places this case in pari 
materia with the Commission's finding of negligibility in the 
countervailing duty investigation and provides a compelling basis to 
now find that imports from Turkey were negligible in the original 
antidumping duty investigation.
    On December 2, 2021, the Commission published a Federal Register 
notice inviting comments from the public on whether changed 
circumstances exist sufficient to warrant the institution of a changed 
circumstances review (86 FR 68512, Dec. 2, 2021). In response to its 
Federal Register notice soliciting comments, the Commission received a 
submission opposing the institution of a changed circumstances review 
jointly filed on behalf of Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., Nucor Corporation, 
SSAB Enterprises, LLC, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and United States Steel 
Corporation. The Commission also received separate submissions in favor 
of instituting a changed circumstances review on behalf of the 
government of the Republic of Turkey and Erdemir.
    The Commission has determined not to institute a changed 
circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel 
flat products from Turkey. At the time Erdemir filed its request for a 
changed circumstance review, the Commission was already conducting a 
five-year review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat 
products from Turkey. Conducting a changed circumstances review at the 
same time as a five-year review would be unwarranted because it would 
be duplicative of the full five-year review. See Eveready Battery Co. 
Inc. v. United States, 77 F. Supp.2d 1327 (CIT 1999) (finding that a 
request for a changed circumstances review was rendered moot by the 
Commission's institution of a full five-year review). Moreover, the 
result that Erdemir seeks--reexamination of the Commission's original 
negligibility finding--is not possible in a changed circumstances 
review because negligibility is not a factor for the Commission to 
consider under the statute in a changed circumstances review. A changed 
circumstances review involves a forward-looking inquiry that considers 
whether in view of changed circumstances an order is no longer needed 
to prevent the continuation or recurrence of material injury; it does 
not provide an opportunity for the Commission to reconsider and amend 
its original injury determination. Compare 19 U.S.C. 1675a(a) with 19 
U.S.C. 1673d(b)(1) & 1677(24).
    While not included in its request for a changed circumstances 
review, Erdemir raised in its comments regarding the changed 
circumstances request that the Commission consider the alternative of 
conducting a reconsideration proceeding. After considering this 
alternative request, the Commission has determined not to exercise its 
authority to undertake a reconsideration of its negligibility analysis 
in its original material injury determination with respect to the 
antidumping duty investigation of imports of hot-rolled steel flat 
products from Turkey.
    In view of the presumption of finality and correctness that 
underlies past action by the Commission, the Commission has chosen to 
exercise its authority to reconsider only when ``extraordinary 
circumstances'' are present. For example, the Commission reconsidered 
its determination in Ferrosilicion ``when a fraud has been perpetrated 
on the tribunal in its initial proceeding.'' Ferrosilicon from Brazil, 
China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, and Venezuela, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-
566-570, 641 and 303-TA-23 (Reconsideration), USITC Pub. 3218 (Aug. 
1999) (``Ferrosilicon Reconsideration''), aff'd Elkem Metals Co. v. 
United States, 193 F.Supp.2d 1314 (CIT 2002). In Ferrosilicon 
Reconsideration, the Commission concluded that the ``type of 
extraordinary circumstances that . . . would warrant reconsideration of 
a Commission determination--matters that strike at the heart of the 
integrity of the administrative process'' were present because 
``[d]omestic producers were criminally convicted of an offense 
concerning an issue--the establishment of prices for ferrosilicon--that 
was a focal point of the original Commission investigations.'' 
Ferrosilicon Reconsideration at 8.
    Recognizing that the facts presented are unique to each case, and 
in this case where there is no evidence of fraud or other facts that 
suggest extraordinary circumstances, we do not find that the 
recalculation of the dumping margin by Commerce with respect to hot-
rolled steel flat products from Turkey warrants reconsideration of our 
determination. We note that our finding is consistent with the 
Statement of Administrative Action to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(SAA) and statutory provisions, in which Congress specifically 
contemplated subsequent changes to the antidumping duty margins and 
instructed that such changes would not be a basis to reconsider the 
Commission's impact analysis.\1\ See 19 U.S.C. 1677(35)(C) and

[[Page 73333]]

SAA at 851. There was a path for Erdemir to avail itself to preserve 
its rights to obtain a reexamination of the Commission's original 
determination in light of the subsequent successful appeal of 
Commerce's final original determination that resulted in a de minimis 
dumping margin for Colakoglu and exclusion of imports from Colakoglu 
from the scope of Commerce's final affirmative antidumping duty 
determination. The potential impact on Erdemir at the time that Erdemir 
and Colakoglu appealed Commerce's final antidumping duty determination 
was known to Erdemir at that time, and in fact, Erdemir joined 
Colaloglu in appealing Commerce's original determination. Erdemir did 
not appeal the Commission's final affirmative material injury 
determination which would have provided it with the opportunity to 
preserve its rights for further reconsideration of the merits based on 
the outcome of Commerce's appeal. Accord Borlem S.A. Empreedimentos 
Industriais v. United States, 913 F.2d 933, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1990); LG 
Electronics, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, Slip Op. 14-
8, 2014 WL 260603, at *3 (CIT Jan. 23, 2014). The interests of the 
finality of the agency's decision are paramount under the circumstances 
presented and, absent extraordinary circumstances, we decline the 
request to revisit the final original determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commissioners Kearns and Karpel do not join this sentence. 
They note that 19 U.S.C. 1677(35)(C) defines the ``magnitude of 
margins of dumping'' that the Commission is to consider in its 
impact analysis in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1677(7)(C)(iii)(v), and 
that the section of the SAA referenced above pertains to these 
provisions. Erdemir, on the other hand, is not asking the Commission 
to reconsider the ``magnitude of margins of dumping'' for purposes 
of its impact analysis pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677(7)(C)(iii)(v) and 
1677(35)(C), but rather is asking for the Commission to reconsider 
its negligibility analysis for purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)(1) and 
19 U.S.C. 1677(24) because the scope of imports subject to 
Commerce's final affirmative antidumping duty determination has 
changed. Therefore, in their view, it is not clear that 19 U.S.C. 
1677(7)(C)(iii)(v) and 1677(35)(C) and the related SAA language 
address the circumstances presented here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority: This notice is published pursuant to section 207.45 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has determined the additional analysis needed 
to consider the alternative reconsideration request was good cause 
to exercise its authority to waive the institution period pursuant 
to section 207.45(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 207.45(c)).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 23, 2022.
Jessica Mullan,
Acting Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2022-25984 Filed 11-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P