Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Intent to Rescind in Part, 1031-1036 [2010-128]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices
Saturday, March 13 ............
Breakfast briefing by the U.S. Commercial Service at hotel.
One-on-one business appointments or exhibition at Medical Fair India.
Evening: Networking reception.
Mumbai
Hospital chain visit and meeting with senior management.
Or Medical Fair India 2010.
Evening: Check-out of the hotel or remain in Mumbai for Medical Fair India.
Depart for Mumbai International airport for onward travel.
Participation Requirements
All parties interested in participating
in the Medical Trade Mission to India
must complete and submit an
application for consideration by the
Department of Commerce. All
applicants will be evaluated on their
ability to meet certain conditions and
best satisfy the selection criteria as
outlined below. The mission is open on
a first come first served basis to 15
qualified U.S. companies. Additional
applications will be considered as time
and space permits.
Fees and Expenses
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
After a company has been selected to
participate on the mission, a payment to
the Department of Commerce in the
form of a participation fee is required.
The participation fees reflect two
options:
Option 1: March 8–13, 2010.
Participation in the Trade Mission in all
three cities: New Delhi, Chennai, and
Mumbai. The participation fee will be
$4,600 for large firms and $3,900 for a
small or medium-sized enterprise
(SME) 1, this includes one principal
representative. The fee for each
additional firm representative (large
firm or SME) is $500.
Option 2: March 8–11, 2010
participate in the Trade Mission in two
cities: New Delhi and Chennai and
March 12–14, exhibit at the Medical
Fair India 2010 in Mumbai. The
participation fee for New Delhi-Chennai
and exhibiting in the Fair in Mumbai
$6,800 ($3,600 Trade Mission fee +
$3,200 for 9 square meter booth space 2)
for large firms and $ 6,100 ($2,900 Trade
Mission fee + $3,200 for 9 square meter
booth space) for an SME, which
includes one principal representative.
The fee for each additional firm
1 An SME is defined as a firm with 500 or fewer
employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small
business under SBA regulations (see https://
www.sba.gov/services/contracting_opportunities/
sizestandardstopics/). Parent companies,
affiliates, and subsidiaries will be considered when
determining business size. The dual pricing
schedule reflects the Commercial Service’s user fee
schedule that became effective May 1, 2008 (for
additional information see https://www.export.gov/
newsletter/march2008/initiatives.html).
2 Minimum booth space is 9 square meters.
Companies can take larger space for which cost will
be calculated accordingly.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
1031
16:14 Jan 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
representative (large firm or SME) is
$250.
Expenses for lodging, some meals,
incidentals, and travel (except for
transportation to and from meetings)
will be the responsibility of each
mission participant.
Conditions for Participation
• An applicant must submit a
completed and signed mission
application and supplemental
application materials, including
adequate information on the company’s
products and/or services, primary
market objectives, and goals for
participation.
• Each applicant must also certify
that the products and services it seeks
to export through the mission are either
produced in the United States, or, if not,
marketed under the name of a U.S. firm
and have at least fifty-one percent U.S.
content.
Selection Criteria for Participation
Selection will be based on the
following criteria:
• Suitability of a company’s products
or services to the mission’s goals.
• Applicant’s potential for business
in India, including likelihood of exports
resulting from the trade mission.
• Consistency of the applicant’s goals
and objectives with the stated scope of
the trade mission.
Any partisan political activities
(including political contributions) of an
applicant are entirely irrelevant to the
selection process.
Timeframe for Recruitment and
Applications
Mission recruitment will be
conducted in an open and public
manner, including posting in the
Federal Register, the Commerce
Department trade mission calendar
(https://www.ita.doc.gov/doctm/
tmcal.html), and other Internet Web
sites; press releases to general and trade
media; direct mail; notices by industry
trade associations and other multiplier
groups; and publicity at industry
meetings, symposia, conferences, and
trade shows. Recruitment for the
mission will begin immediately and
conclude no later than January 31, 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Contacts
U.S. Commercial Service Healthcare
Team: Ms. Jetta DeNend, International
Trade Specialist, U.S. Commercial
Service, 33 Whitehall St. 22nd Floor,
New York, NY 10004, Ph: 212–809–
2644/Fax: 212–809–268, E-mail:
Jetta.DeNend@mail.doc.gov.
U.S. Commercial Service in India: Mr.
Srimoti Mukherji, U.S. Commercial
Service, New Delhi, Ph: 91–11–
23472000, ext 2226, Fax: 91–11–2331
5172, Srimoti.Mukherji@mail.doc.gov.
Lisa Huot,
Global Trade Programs, Commercial Service
Trade Missions Program.
[FR Doc. 2010–108 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–533–820)
Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, and Intent
to Rescind in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
petitioners,1 the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping order on certain hot–
rolled carbon steel flat products from
India (‘‘Indian Hot–Rolled’’)
manufactured by Essar Steel Limited
(‘‘Essar’’), Ispat Industries Limited
(‘‘Ispat’’), JSW Steel Limited (‘‘JSW’’), and
Tata Steel Limited (‘‘Tata’’). The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) covers December 1,
2007, through November 30, 2008. We
preliminarily determine to calculate an
antidumping duty margin based upon
the application of adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’) with respect to Essar’s sales.
We also preliminarily determine that
Ispat, JSW and Tata had no entries of
subject merchandise subject to review
under this antidumping order during
1 The petitioners are the United States Steel
Corporation Steel, Nucor Corporation, and
ArcelorMittal USA Inc. (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’).
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
1032
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
the POR. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We intend to issue the final results no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy
Zhang or James Terpstra, AD/CVD
Operations Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1168 and (202)
482–3965, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 3, 2001, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on Indian Hot–
Rolled. See Notice of Amended Final
Antidumping Duty Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot–
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001)
(‘‘Amended Final Determination’’). On
December 1, 2008, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice titled ‘‘Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review’’ of the
antidumping duty order on Indian Hot–
Rolled. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 73
FR 72764 (December 1, 2008). On
December 31, 2008, petitioners
requested an administrative review in
the antidumping duty order on Indian
Hot–Rolled, for subject merchandise
produced or exported by Ispat, JSW,
Tata, and Essar. On February 2, 2009,
the Department published a notice of
initiation of antidumping duty
administrative review of Indian Hot–
Rolled for the period December 1, 2007,
through November 30, 2008. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 2009)
(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On February 6,
2009, Ispat, Essar, and JSW each
informed the Department that they did
not have shipments of the subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. On February 19, 2009, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:14 Jan 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Department released to the parties U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
data showing a single entry of subject
merchandise into the United States.2 On
February 25, 2009, Tata informed the
Department that it made no shipments
of subject merchandise that were
entered into the United States during
the POR, and that the entry shown in
the CBP data was not produced by Tata,
but was in fact produced and sold by
another Indian manufacturer. On March
4, 2009, Essar filed a response to the
CBP data and Tata’s February 25, 2009,
submission, stating that Essar made a
sale during the POR, but Essar believed
that this was a domestic sale, rather
than a sale to the United States. On
March 17, 2009, the Department issued
an antidumping questionnaire to Tata.
On March 19, 2009, Tata submitted its
response to the Department and
included as an attachment several e–
mails regarding the sale in question to
demonstrate that Essar was the exporter
of the single shipment. Tata argued that
Essar had actual knowledge at the time
that it made the sale in India to Tata
Steel’s affiliate, Tata Ryerson, that the
merchandise was to be exported to the
United States. Therefore, Tata argued
that Essar is the appropriate exporter for
this shipment, and that the Department
should rescind the instant review of
Tata. See Tata’s March 19, 2009,
submission at 2. In its April 3, 2009,
submission, Essar reiterated that
because it treated the subject sale as a
domestic sale, it had no shipments to
the United States during the POR and it
should not be a respondent in this
proceeding. See Essar’s April 3, 2009,
submission at 5.
On May 8, 2009, the Department sent
a letter to Essar, stating that, after review
of record information from CBP, and the
submissions of both Essar and Tata, the
Department determined that Essar had
knowledge that the merchandise it sold
was destined for the United States
before the terms of sale were finalized.
Because the Department considered the
shipment of subject merchandise to be
made by Essar, it notified Essar that it
would be required to respond to the
Department’s antidumping
questionnaire. See Letter from James
Terpstra, Program Manager, AD/CVD,
Office 3, Import Administration to
Essar, dated May 8, 2009.
2 See Memorandum to File, Re: ‘‘Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India,’’
Subject: ‘‘Customs and Border Protection Data for
Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,’’
from Dennis McClure, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, through James Terpstra,
Program Manager, and Melissa Skinner, Office
Director, Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, dated
February 19, 2009 (‘‘Hot-Rolled Memo’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Contrary to the Department’s
instructions, Essar did not respond to
the Department’s questionnaire. Instead,
by letter dated June 15, 2009, Essar
informed the Department that it would
not be able to actively participate in this
administrative review, except with
respect to briefing and any hearing that
might be requested. Essar reiterated its
position that it was not the appropriate
respondent and requested that the
Department rescind this review with
respect to Essar.
On September 10, 2009, the
Department extended the time period
for issuing the preliminary results of the
administrative review from September
2, 2009, to December 31, 2009. See
Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India: Notice of
Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
46569 (September 2, 2009).
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is
December 1, 2007, through November
30, 2008.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order
is certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat
products of a rectangular shape, of a
width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither
clad, plated, nor coated with metal and
whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other non–
metallic substances, in coils (whether or
not in successively superimposed
layers), regardless of thickness, and in
straight lengths, of a thickness of less
than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring
at least 10 times the thickness.
Universal mill plate (i.e., flat–rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a
closed box pass, of a width exceeding
150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm,
and of a thickness of not less than 4
mm, not in coils and without patterns
in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0
mm is not included within the scope of
this order.
Specifically included in the scope of
this order are vacuum–degassed, fully
stabilized (commonly referred to as
interstitial–free (‘‘IF’’)) steels, high–
strength low–alloy (‘‘HSLA’’) steels, and
the substrate for motor lamination
steels. IF steels are recognized as low–
carbon steels with micro–alloying levels
of elements such as titanium or niobium
(also commonly referred to as
columbium), or both, added to stabilize
carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA
steels are recognized as steels with
micro–alloying levels of elements such
as chromium, copper, niobium,
vanadium, and molybdenum. The
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices
substrate for motor lamination steels
contains micro–alloying levels of
elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products included in the scope
of this order, regardless of definitions in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products
in which: i) iron predominates, by
weight, over each of the other contained
elements; ii) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and iii) none
of the elements listed below exceeds the
quantity, by weight, respectively
indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical
and chemical description provided
above are within the scope of this order
unless otherwise excluded. The
following products, by way of example,
are outside or specifically excluded
from the scope of this order:
• Alloy hot–rolled carbon steel
products in which at least one of
the chemical elements exceeds
those listed above (including, e.g.,
American Society for Testing and
Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) specifications
A543, A387, A514, A517, A506)).
• Society of Automotive Engineers
(‘‘SAE’’)/American Iron & Steel
Institute (‘‘AISI’’) grades of series
2300 and higher.
• Ball bearings steels, as defined in
the HTSUS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the
HTSUS.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
• Silico–manganese (as defined in the
HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel
with a silicon level exceeding 2.25
percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and
A736.
• United States Steel (‘‘USS’’)
Abrasion–resistant steels (USS AR
400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or
otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM
specification (sample specifications:
ASTM A506, A507).
• Non–rectangular shapes, not in
coils, which are the result of having
been processed by cutting or
stamping and which have assumed
the character of articles or products
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:14 Jan 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
classified outside chapter 72 of the
HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00,
7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00,
7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60,
7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60,
7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15,
7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60,
7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90,
7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00,
7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90.
Certain hot–rolled carbon steel covered
by this order, including: vacuum–
degassed fully stabilized; high–strength
low–alloy; and the substrate for motor
lamination steel may also enter under
the following tariff numbers:
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00,
7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00,
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90,
7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30,
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00,
7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and
7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00,
7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and
7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
merchandise subject to this order is
dispositive.
Intent to Rescind and Preliminary
Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review with Respect to Ispat, JSW, and
Tata
Ispat and JSW have each submitted
timely–filed certifications indicating
that they had no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. See Hot–Rolled Memo. The
Department confirmed Ispat and JSW’s
assertions with the CBP data. With
respect to the one entry of subject
merchandise into the United States
during the POR, the Department
determined that the entry was produced
and sold by Essar because Essar had
knowledge that merchandise it was
selling was destined for the United
States before the terms of sale were
finalized. In making this determination,
the Department concluded, based upon
record evidence that the sale was not
made by Tata. As a result, we
preliminarily find that, during the POR,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1033
Ispat, JSW, and Tata did not have
entries of subject merchandise into the
United States subject to this
antidumping review. Therefore,
pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(3), and
consistent with our practice, we
preliminarily determine to rescind this
review with respect to Ispat, JSW and
Tata. We invite comments from
interested parties on this intent to
rescind.
Use of Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides
that, the Department shall apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary
information is not on the record, or (2)
an interested party or any other person
(A) withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information
that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If the party fails to remedy
the deficiency within the applicable
time limits and subject to section 782(e)
of the Act, the Department may
disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department ‘‘shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all applicable requirements established
by the administering authority’’ if the
information is timely, can be verified, is
not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the
best of its ability in providing the
information. Where all of these
conditions are met, the statute requires
the Department to use the information
supplied if it can do so without undue
difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition,
the final determination, a previous
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
1034
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
‘‘{i}nformation derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
concerning the subject merchandise.’’
See Statement of Administrative Action,
reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103–216, at
870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). Corroborate means
that the Department will satisfy itself
that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. Id. To
corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used.
Application of Adverse Facts Available
On May 8, 2009, the Department sent
a letter to Essar, stating that record
evidence indicated that Essar had
knowledge that the merchandise it sold
to Tata Ryerson was destined for the
United States before the terms of sale
were finalized. Accordingly, the
Department required Essar to respond to
the Department’s antidumping
questionnaire in accordance with the
Department’s practice. Under section
772(a) of the Act, the basis for export
price is the price at which the first party
in the chain of distribution who has
knowledge of the U.S. destination of the
merchandise sells the subject
merchandise, either directly to a U.S.
purchaser or to an intermediary such as
a trading company. The party making
such a sale, with knowledge of the
destination, is the appropriate party to
be reviewed. The Department’s test for
determining knowledge is whether the
relevant party knew or should have
known that the merchandise was for
export to the United States. See SAA.
The record evidence in this review
shows that Essar learned of the U.S.
destination of the merchandise on the
same day that it offered an initial sales
quote for coiled steel to Tata Ryerson,
and that Essar knew that Tata Ryerson
would slit the coil and ship it the
United States. Therefore, the
Department determined that Essar sold
the subject merchandise to Tata Ryerson
and at the time of the sale, had
knowledge or should have known its
merchandise was ultimately destined
for the United States.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:14 Jan 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Instead of responding to the
Department’s questionnaire, Essar stated
that it would not respond. Specifically,
Essar stated that ‘‘it will not be able to
actively participate in this
administrative review, except with
respect to briefing and any hearing in
this review.’’ See Essar’s June 15, 2009,
letter to the Department at 2. Therefore,
the Department preliminarily
determines that necessary information is
not available on the record to serve as
the basis for the calculation of Essar’s
margin. See section 776(a)(1) of the Act.
We also determine that Essar withheld
requested information and, as a result,
has significantly impeded this
proceeding. See section 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C) of the Act; see Certain Lined Paper
Products from India: Notice of Final
Results of the First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 17149
(April 14, 2009), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2; see also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Affirmative Final
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice
From Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (January 13,
2006), and the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 18;
and Notice of Final Determination of
Sales of Less Than Fair Value and Final
Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (August
30, 2002) (‘‘Wire Rod from Brazil’’).
Because Essar did not submit the
questionnaire response requested by the
Department, and notified the
Department that it would not participate
in this administrative review, there is no
information provided by Essar that
would enable the Department to
calculate a margin for Essar. Thus,
section 782(d) of the Act does not apply
in this case.
According to section 776(b) of the
Act, if the Department finds that an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information, the
Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from the facts otherwise
available. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (September 13,
2005); and Wire Rod from Brazil 67 FR
55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002).
Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to
ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.’’ See SAA at 870. Furthermore,
‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the
part of a respondent is not required
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
before the Department may make an
adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19,
1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v.
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon’’). In this case,
the Department finds that Essar did not
act to the best of its ability in this
proceeding, within the meaning of
section 776(b) of the Act, because it
could have responded to the
Department’s requests for information,
but decided not to do so. In fact, Essar
made no attempt to provide the
Department with any information after
it was informed by the Department that
it would be a mandatory respondent in
this review. Therefore, an adverse
inference is warranted in selecting from
the facts otherwise available with
respect to Essar. See Nippon, 337 F.3d
at 1382–83.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that the Department may use as AFA,
information derived from: 1) the
petition; 2) the final determination in
the investigation; 3) any previous
review; or 4) any other information
placed on the record. The Department’s
practice, when selecting an AFA rate
from among the possible sources of
information, has been to ensure that the
margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to
effectuate the statutory purposes of the
adverse facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department
with complete and accurate information
in a timely manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084
(November 7, 2006).
In order to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse so as to induce
future cooperation, the Department
preliminarily determines to assign Essar
an AFA rate of 28.25 percent. This rate
is Essar’s cash deposit rate from the
investigation and represents the highest
calculated margin from the investigation
in this case as adjusted to account for
countervailing duties imposed to offset
export subsidies. The Department
determines that the selected margin will
prevent Essar from benefitting from its
failure to cooperate with the
Department’s requests for information.
See Notice of Amended Final
Antidumping Duty Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot–
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001).
Additionally, we find that this rate is
reasonably high enough to encourage
participation in future segments of the
proceeding.
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the
Department to corroborate, to the extent
practicable, secondary information used
as facts available. Secondary
information is defined as information
derived from the petition that gave rise
to the investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise. See 19 CFR
351.308(c) and (d); see also the SAA at
870. The SAA clarifies that
‘‘corroborate’’ means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has
probative value. See the SAA at 870.
The SAA also states that independent
sources used to corroborate such
evidence may include, for example,
published price lists, official import
statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested
parties during the particular
investigation. Id. To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the
information used. Id.
Unlike other types of information
such as input costs or selling expenses,
there are no independent sources for
calculated dumping margins. The only
source for an antidumping margin is the
investigation and prior administrative
determinations. If the Department
chooses as facts available a calculated
dumping margin from the investigation
or a prior segment of the proceeding, it
is not necessary to question the
reliability of the margin. See Carbazole
Violet Pigment 23 from India:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
52012 (September 8, 2008) (‘‘Carbazole
Violet Pigment 23 from India’’); see also
Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof
from France, et al.: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, Partial Rescission of
Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent
to Rescind Administrative Reviews, and
Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part,
69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 2004),
unchanged in Antifriction Bearings and
Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, Rescission of
Administrative Reviews in Part, and
Determination To Revoke Order in Part,
69 FR 55574, 55576–77 (September 15,
2004).
With respect to the relevance aspect
of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information
reasonably at its disposal to determine
whether a margin continues to have
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:14 Jan 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
relevance. Where circumstances
indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as AFA, the Department
will disregard the margin and determine
an appropriate margin. For example, in
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
6814 (February 22, 1996), the
Department disregarded the highest
margin in that case as adverse best
information available (the predecessor
to facts available) because the margin
was based on another company’s
uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin.
Similarly, the Department does not
apply a margin that has been discredited
or judicially invalidated. See D & L
Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d
1220, 1221 (CAFC 1997).
In this case, there are no
circumstances present to indicate that
the selected margin is not appropriate as
facts available. We have decided to use
the highest cash deposit rate calculated
for Essar from any prior segment of
these proceedings as AFA. The
Department considers this dumping
margin relevant for use as AFA for this
review because this margin is calculated
based on Essar’s own information in the
original investigation.3 Moreover, there
is no information on the record of this
review that demonstrates that 28.25
percent is not an appropriate AFA rate
for Essar. The Department finds that the
use of the rate of 28.25 percent as an
AFA rate is sufficiently high to ensure
that Essar does not benefit from failing
to cooperate in our review by refusing
to respond to our questionnaire. See
Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality
Steel Plate Products from the Republic
of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission of Administrative Review in
Part, 73 FR 15132, 15133 (March 21,
2008); see also Carbazole Violet Pigment
23 from India. Thus, the Department
considers the 28.25 percent rate
corroborated ‘‘to the extent practicable’’
in accordance with the Act.
Adjustment for Export Subsidies
As noted above, in the original
investigation, we subtracted the portion
of the countervailing duty rate
attributable to export subsidies (8.03
percent) from the antidumping margin
(36.53 percent) in order to calculate the
cash–deposit rate of 28.25 percent.
Because the AFA rate we selected for
this review is the adjusted cash–deposit
rate we calculated for Essar in the
3 This rate is adjusted to 28.25 percent to account
for the export subsidy rate found in the
countervailing duty investigation.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1035
investigation, we are making no further
adjustments under section 772(c)(1)(C)
of the Act.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily find that the following
dumping margin exists for the period
December 1, 2007, through November
30, 2008.
Producer/Manufacturer
Essar .............................
Rate Adjusted for
Export Subsidies
28.25
Disclosure
The Department will disclose these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Comments
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results and
may submit case briefs and/or written
comments within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited
to issues raised in the case briefs, will
be due five days later, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding
are requested to submit with each
argument (1) a statement of the issue,
and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Parties are requested to
provide a summary of the arguments not
to exceed five pages and a table of
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Additionally,
parties are requested to provide their
case brief and rebuttal briefs in
electronic format (e.g., Microsoft Word,
pdf, etc.). Interested parties, who wish
to request a hearing or to participate if
one is requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) the party’s
name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of issues to be discussed. See 19
CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the
hearing will be limited to those raised
in case and rebuttal briefs. The
Department will issue the final results
of this review, including the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any such
written briefs or at the hearing, if held,
not later than 120 days after the date of
publication of this notice.
Assessment Rate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
1036
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after the publication of the final results
of this review. We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review. The final results of this review
shall be the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of
merchandise covered by the final results
of these reviews and for future deposits
of estimated duties, where applicable.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment
Policy Notice’’). This clarification will
apply to entries of subject merchandise
during the POR produced by companies
included in these final results of review
for which the reviewed companies did
not know that the merchandise they
sold to the 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
intermediary involved in the
transaction. See Assessment Policy
Notice for a full discussion of this
clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this administrative review for
all shipments of hot–rolled carbon steel
flat products from India entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for
the company listed above will be the
rate established in the final results of
this review, except if the rate is less
than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de
minimis, the cash deposit will be zero;
(2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company–specific rate published for
the most recent final results in which
that manufacturer or exporter
participated; (3) if the exporter is not a
firm covered in these reviews, a prior
review, or the original less–than-fair–
value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent final results for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and (4) if neither
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a
firm covered in this or any previous
review or the LTFV conducted by the
Department, the cash deposit rate will
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:14 Jan 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
be 23.87 percent, the all–others rate
established in the LTFV. See Amended
Final Determination. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping and countervailing duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping and countervailing duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping and
countervailing duties.
These preliminary results of review
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: December 30, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–128 Filed 01–07–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection Requests
Department of Education.
SUMMARY: The Acting Director,
Information Collection Clearance
Division, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of
Management, invites comments on the
proposed information collection
requests as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before March 9,
2010.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) provide interested
Federal agencies and the public an early
opportunity to comment on information
collection requests. OMB may amend or
waive the requirement for public
consultation to the extent that public
participation in the approval process
would defeat the purpose of the
information collection, violate State or
Federal law, or substantially interfere
with any agency’s ability to perform its
statutory obligations. The Acting
Director, Information Collection
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Clearance Division, Regulatory
Information Management Services,
Office of Management, publishes that
notice containing proposed information
collection requests prior to submission
of these requests to OMB. Each
proposed information collection,
grouped by office, contains the
following: (1) Type of review requested,
e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or
reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of
the collection; (4) Description of the
need for, and proposed use of, the
information; (5) Respondents and
frequency of collection; and (6)
Reporting and/or Recordkeeping
burden. OMB invites public comment.
The Department of Education is
especially interested in public comment
addressing the following issues: (1) Is
this collection necessary to the proper
functions of the Department; (2) will
this information be processed and used
in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate
of burden accurate; (4) how might the
Department enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (5) how might the
Department minimize the burden of this
collection on the respondents, including
through the use of information
technology.
Dated: January 5, 2010.
James Hyler,
Acting Director, Information Collection
Clearance Division, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of Management.
Institute of Education Sciences
Type of Review: New.
Title: National Title I Study of
Implementation and Outcomes: Early
Childhood Language Development
(ECLD).
Frequency: One time.
Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal
Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour
Burden:
Responses: 16.
Burden Hours: 36.
Abstract: The study is being
conducted as part of the National
Assessment of Title I, mandated by Title
I, Part E, Section 1501 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. The data
obtained by this information collection
will provide a sampling frame of eligible
schools for the National Title I Study of
Implementation and Outcomes: Early
Childhood Language Development
(ECLD). Once school districts have been
indentified to participate in the study,
they will be asked to complete a short
form providing information about Title
I schools in their district. This
information includes the percent of
student in a selected school that are
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1031-1036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-128]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-533-820)
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and
Intent to Rescind in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners,\1\ the Department of
Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products
from India (``Indian Hot-Rolled'') manufactured by Essar Steel Limited
(``Essar''), Ispat Industries Limited (``Ispat''), JSW Steel Limited
(``JSW''), and Tata Steel Limited (``Tata''). The period of review
(``POR'') covers December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008. We
preliminarily determine to calculate an antidumping duty margin based
upon the application of adverse facts available (``AFA'') with respect
to Essar's sales. We also preliminarily determine that Ispat, JSW and
Tata had no entries of subject merchandise subject to review under this
antidumping order during
[[Page 1032]]
the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results
of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of
subject merchandise during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation
Steel, Nucor Corporation, and ArcelorMittal USA Inc. (collectively
``petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Zhang or James Terpstra, AD/CVD
Operations Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1168 and (202) 482-3965, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on Indian Hot-Rolled. See Notice of
Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001) (``Amended Final
Determination''). On December 1, 2008, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice titled ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on Indian Hot-
Rolled. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,
73 FR 72764 (December 1, 2008). On December 31, 2008, petitioners
requested an administrative review in the antidumping duty order on
Indian Hot-Rolled, for subject merchandise produced or exported by
Ispat, JSW, Tata, and Essar. On February 2, 2009, the Department
published a notice of initiation of antidumping duty administrative
review of Indian Hot-Rolled for the period December 1, 2007, through
November 30, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR
5821 (February 2, 2009) (``Initiation Notice''). On February 6, 2009,
Ispat, Essar, and JSW each informed the Department that they did not
have shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during
the POR. On February 19, 2009, the Department released to the parties
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data showing a single
entry of subject merchandise into the United States.\2\ On February 25,
2009, Tata informed the Department that it made no shipments of subject
merchandise that were entered into the United States during the POR,
and that the entry shown in the CBP data was not produced by Tata, but
was in fact produced and sold by another Indian manufacturer. On March
4, 2009, Essar filed a response to the CBP data and Tata's February 25,
2009, submission, stating that Essar made a sale during the POR, but
Essar believed that this was a domestic sale, rather than a sale to the
United States. On March 17, 2009, the Department issued an antidumping
questionnaire to Tata. On March 19, 2009, Tata submitted its response
to the Department and included as an attachment several e-mails
regarding the sale in question to demonstrate that Essar was the
exporter of the single shipment. Tata argued that Essar had actual
knowledge at the time that it made the sale in India to Tata Steel's
affiliate, Tata Ryerson, that the merchandise was to be exported to the
United States. Therefore, Tata argued that Essar is the appropriate
exporter for this shipment, and that the Department should rescind the
instant review of Tata. See Tata's March 19, 2009, submission at 2. In
its April 3, 2009, submission, Essar reiterated that because it treated
the subject sale as a domestic sale, it had no shipments to the United
States during the POR and it should not be a respondent in this
proceeding. See Essar's April 3, 2009, submission at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum to File, Re: ``Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from India,'' Subject: ``Customs and Border
Protection Data for Selection of Respondents for Individual
Review,'' from Dennis McClure, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, through James Terpstra, Program Manager, and Melissa
Skinner, Office Director, Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, dated
February 19, 2009 (``Hot-Rolled Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 8, 2009, the Department sent a letter to Essar, stating
that, after review of record information from CBP, and the submissions
of both Essar and Tata, the Department determined that Essar had
knowledge that the merchandise it sold was destined for the United
States before the terms of sale were finalized. Because the Department
considered the shipment of subject merchandise to be made by Essar, it
notified Essar that it would be required to respond to the Department's
antidumping questionnaire. See Letter from James Terpstra, Program
Manager, AD/CVD, Office 3, Import Administration to Essar, dated May 8,
2009.
Contrary to the Department's instructions, Essar did not respond to
the Department's questionnaire. Instead, by letter dated June 15, 2009,
Essar informed the Department that it would not be able to actively
participate in this administrative review, except with respect to
briefing and any hearing that might be requested. Essar reiterated its
position that it was not the appropriate respondent and requested that
the Department rescind this review with respect to Essar.
On September 10, 2009, the Department extended the time period for
issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review from
September 2, 2009, to December 31, 2009. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
46569 (September 2, 2009).
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is December 1, 2007, through
November 30, 2008.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled carbon
steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or
greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not
painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic
substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed
layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a
thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10
times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150
mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4
mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not
less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order.
Specifically included in the scope of this order are vacuum-
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free
(``IF'')) steels, high-strength low-alloy (``HSLA'') steels, and the
substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low-
carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium
or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper,
niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The
[[Page 1033]]
substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of
elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight,
over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical and chemical description
provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or
specifically excluded from the scope of this order:
Alloy hot-rolled carbon steel products in which at least
one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including,
e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'')
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506)).
Society of Automotive Engineers (``SAE'')/American Iron &
Steel Institute (``AISI'') grades of series 2300 and higher.
Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
United States Steel (``USS'') Abrasion-resistant steels
(USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of
the HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel
covered by this order, including: vacuum-degassed fully stabilized;
high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel
may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00,
7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00,
7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60,
7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00,
7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter
under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00,
7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written
description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.
Intent to Rescind and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review with Respect to Ispat, JSW, and Tata
Ispat and JSW have each submitted timely-filed certifications
indicating that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR. See Hot-Rolled Memo. The Department
confirmed Ispat and JSW's assertions with the CBP data. With respect to
the one entry of subject merchandise into the United States during the
POR, the Department determined that the entry was produced and sold by
Essar because Essar had knowledge that merchandise it was selling was
destined for the United States before the terms of sale were finalized.
In making this determination, the Department concluded, based upon
record evidence that the sale was not made by Tata. As a result, we
preliminarily find that, during the POR, Ispat, JSW, and Tata did not
have entries of subject merchandise into the United States subject to
this antidumping review. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.
351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice, we preliminarily
determine to rescind this review with respect to Ispat, JSW and Tata.
We invite comments from interested parties on this intent to rescind.
Use of Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, the Department shall apply
``facts otherwise available'' if (1) necessary information is not on
the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D)
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section
782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e)
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements
established by the administering authority'' if the information is
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the
statute requires the Department to use the information supplied if it
can do so without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on information derived from the
petition, the final determination, a previous
[[Page 1034]]
administrative review, or other information placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action,
reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103-216, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. To
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
to be used.
Application of Adverse Facts Available
On May 8, 2009, the Department sent a letter to Essar, stating that
record evidence indicated that Essar had knowledge that the merchandise
it sold to Tata Ryerson was destined for the United States before the
terms of sale were finalized. Accordingly, the Department required
Essar to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire in
accordance with the Department's practice. Under section 772(a) of the
Act, the basis for export price is the price at which the first party
in the chain of distribution who has knowledge of the U.S. destination
of the merchandise sells the subject merchandise, either directly to a
U.S. purchaser or to an intermediary such as a trading company. The
party making such a sale, with knowledge of the destination, is the
appropriate party to be reviewed. The Department's test for determining
knowledge is whether the relevant party knew or should have known that
the merchandise was for export to the United States. See SAA. The
record evidence in this review shows that Essar learned of the U.S.
destination of the merchandise on the same day that it offered an
initial sales quote for coiled steel to Tata Ryerson, and that Essar
knew that Tata Ryerson would slit the coil and ship it the United
States. Therefore, the Department determined that Essar sold the
subject merchandise to Tata Ryerson and at the time of the sale, had
knowledge or should have known its merchandise was ultimately destined
for the United States.
Instead of responding to the Department's questionnaire, Essar
stated that it would not respond. Specifically, Essar stated that ``it
will not be able to actively participate in this administrative review,
except with respect to briefing and any hearing in this review.'' See
Essar's June 15, 2009, letter to the Department at 2. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily determines that necessary information is not
available on the record to serve as the basis for the calculation of
Essar's margin. See section 776(a)(1) of the Act. We also determine
that Essar withheld requested information and, as a result, has
significantly impeded this proceeding. See section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C)
of the Act; see Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of
Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74
FR 17149 (April 14, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2; see also Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice From Brazil, 71 FR 2183
(January 13, 2006), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 18; and Notice of Final Determination of Sales of Less Than
Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August
30, 2002) (``Wire Rod from Brazil'').
Because Essar did not submit the questionnaire response requested
by the Department, and notified the Department that it would not
participate in this administrative review, there is no information
provided by Essar that would enable the Department to calculate a
margin for Essar. Thus, section 782(d) of the Act does not apply in
this case.
According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and Wire Rod
from Brazil 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences
are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' See SAA at 870. Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad
faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department
may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon
Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(``Nippon''). In this case, the Department finds that Essar did not act
to the best of its ability in this proceeding, within the meaning of
section 776(b) of the Act, because it could have responded to the
Department's requests for information, but decided not to do so. In
fact, Essar made no attempt to provide the Department with any
information after it was informed by the Department that it would be a
mandatory respondent in this review. Therefore, an adverse inference is
warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available with respect
to Essar. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as
AFA, information derived from: 1) the petition; 2) the final
determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any
other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when
selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information,
has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely manner.'' See, e.g., Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084
(November 7, 2006).
In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to
induce future cooperation, the Department preliminarily determines to
assign Essar an AFA rate of 28.25 percent. This rate is Essar's cash
deposit rate from the investigation and represents the highest
calculated margin from the investigation in this case as adjusted to
account for countervailing duties imposed to offset export subsidies.
The Department determines that the selected margin will prevent Essar
from benefitting from its failure to cooperate with the Department's
requests for information. See Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, 66 FR
60194 (December 3, 2001). Additionally, we find that this rate is
reasonably high enough to encourage participation in future segments of
the proceeding.
[[Page 1035]]
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts
available. Secondary information is defined as information derived from
the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous
review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise. See 19 CFR
351.308(c) and (d); see also the SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has probative value. See the SAA at
870. The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate
such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular investigation. Id. To
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
used. Id.
Unlike other types of information such as input costs or selling
expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping
margins. The only source for an antidumping margin is the investigation
and prior administrative determinations. If the Department chooses as
facts available a calculated dumping margin from the investigation or a
prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the
reliability of the margin. See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
52012 (September 8, 2008) (``Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India'');
see also Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial
Rescission of Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent to Rescind
Administrative Reviews, and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part,
69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 2004), unchanged in Antifriction Bearings
and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in
Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574, 55576-77
(September 15, 2004).
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
6814 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin
in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been
discredited or judicially invalidated. See D & L Supply Co. v. United
States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (CAFC 1997).
In this case, there are no circumstances present to indicate that
the selected margin is not appropriate as facts available. We have
decided to use the highest cash deposit rate calculated for Essar from
any prior segment of these proceedings as AFA. The Department considers
this dumping margin relevant for use as AFA for this review because
this margin is calculated based on Essar's own information in the
original investigation.\3\ Moreover, there is no information on the
record of this review that demonstrates that 28.25 percent is not an
appropriate AFA rate for Essar. The Department finds that the use of
the rate of 28.25 percent as an AFA rate is sufficiently high to ensure
that Essar does not benefit from failing to cooperate in our review by
refusing to respond to our questionnaire. See Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from the Republic of Korea: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of
Administrative Review in Part, 73 FR 15132, 15133 (March 21, 2008); see
also Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India. Thus, the Department
considers the 28.25 percent rate corroborated ``to the extent
practicable'' in accordance with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This rate is adjusted to 28.25 percent to account for the
export subsidy rate found in the countervailing duty investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment for Export Subsidies
As noted above, in the original investigation, we subtracted the
portion of the countervailing duty rate attributable to export
subsidies (8.03 percent) from the antidumping margin (36.53 percent) in
order to calculate the cash-deposit rate of 28.25 percent. Because the
AFA rate we selected for this review is the adjusted cash-deposit rate
we calculated for Essar in the investigation, we are making no further
adjustments under section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the
following dumping margin exists for the period December 1, 2007,
through November 30, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate Adjusted for
Producer/Manufacturer Export Subsidies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essar............................................... 28.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department will disclose these preliminary results to the
parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Comments
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the
case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement
of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are
requested to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2). Additionally, parties are requested to provide their
case brief and rebuttal briefs in electronic format (e.g., Microsoft
Word, pdf, etc.). Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing or
to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the
party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those
raised in case and rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final
results of this review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later
than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Assessment Rate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all
[[Page 1036]]
appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the publication
of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final
results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties,
where applicable.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003)
(``Assessment Policy Notice''). This clarification will apply to
entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies
included in these final results of review for which the reviewed
companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the
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 intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment
Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates
for the company listed above will be the rate established in the final
results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent
and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer
or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in
these reviews, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value
(``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for
the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review
or the LTFV conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be
23.87 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV. See Amended
Final Determination. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping and
countervailing duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: December 30, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-128 Filed 01-07-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
