Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Second Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision, 25701-25702 [2013-10413]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2013 / Notices when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping 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 duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 25, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Notice of Intent To Revoke Order In Part 5. Fair Value Comparisons A. Determination of Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis 6. Product Comparisons 7. Export Price and Constructed Export Price 8. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Market B. Level of Trade C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices 9. Currency Conversion 10. Verification [FR Doc. 2013–10404 Filed 5–1–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–821] sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Second Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: SUMMARY: On April 9, 2013, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce’s (the Department) January VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:50 May 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 2013 remand results.1 The January 2013 remand results explained how the Department corroborated, to the extent practicable, the adverse facts available (AFA) rate assigned to Essar Steel Limited (Essar) in connection with the State Government of Chhattisgarh Industrial Policy (CIP) in the countervailing duty (CVD) administrative review of certain hotrolled carbon steel flat products from India for the 2007 review period (the fifth review period or fifth administrative review).2 Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,3 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,4 the Department is notifying the public that the final CIT judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department’s Amended Final Results 5 and is, therefore, amending the Amended Final Results. DATES: Effective Date: April 19, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, C129, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202– 482–2209. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 6, 2009, the Department published its Final Results.6 In the Final Results, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department applied AFA to find that the subprograms under the CIP 1 See Essar Steel Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 13–48, Court No. 09–197 (Ct. Int’l Trade April 9, 2013) (Essar V); Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Essar Steel Limited v. United States, Court Number 09–00197, Slip Op. 12–132 (CIT October 15, 2012) filed with the CIT on January 11, 2013 (January 2013 remand results). 2 See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 20,923 (May 6, 2009) (Final Results), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memorandum). The administrative review covering the 2007 period is the fifth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on HRCS from India. The administrative review covering the 2006 period is the ‘‘fourth’’ administrative review. See Final Results, and the accompanying I&D Memorandum at ‘‘Sale of HighGrade Iron Ore for LTAR’’ section (referring to the 2006 administrative review as the fourth administrative review). 3 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 4 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 5 See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision, 76 FR 7810 (February 11, 2011) (Amended Final Results). 6 See Final Results. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 25701 constituted financial contributions that were specific and that Essar used and benefited from the subprograms under the CIP.7 The Department attempted to calculate an individual rate for Essar based on the benefit received from the CIP programs but, because it was unable to obtain the necessary information from Essar, it relied on secondary information to determine a rate.8 Specifically, the Department used the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for similar programs (from prior segments of this proceeding) involving grants, the provision of goods for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR), and indirect taxes.9 In Essar I, the CIT remanded Commerce’s AFA determination that Essar benefited from the CIP.10 The CIT explained that the Department’s conclusions in its July 2010 remand redetermination regarding the fourth administrative review in this proceeding, in which the Department found that Essar did not benefit from the CIP based on documents on the fourth administrative review remand record, cast ‘‘grave doubt’’ upon the Department’s findings that Essar benefited from the CIP during the fifth review period.11 Thus, the CIT ordered the Department to reopen and place on the administrative record of the fifth administrative review certain documents from the fourth administrative review remand proceeding, and to consider those documents in its reassessment of whether Essar benefited from the CIP.12 On October 28, 2010, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to Essar I. The remand redetermination explained that, in accordance with the CIT’s order, and under respectful protest, the Department placed certain documents from the fourth administrative review remand proceeding on the record of the fifth administrative review. In light of certain statements by the CIT in Essar I and those documents that the CIT ordered the Department to place on the administrative record, the Department reassessed whether Essar benefited from the CIP during the fifth review period 7 See Final Results, and the accompanying I&D Memorandum at 3–7 and Comment 2. 8 Id. at 22–26. 9 Id. 10 Essar Steel Limited v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1301 (CIT 2010) (Essar I). 11 Id. at 1300; see also Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, United States Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT No., 08–239 (Department of Commerce July 15, 2010) (Fourth Administrative Review Redetermination) at 5–6, 22– 23. 12 Essar I at 1301. E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM 02MYN1 25702 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2013 / Notices sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES and determined that Essar did not.13 The Department’s redetermination resulted in a change to the Final Results concerning Essar’s net subsidy rate for the CIP from 54.69 percent to zero.14 Therefore, Essar’s total net countervailable rate from the Final Results, 76.88 percent, decreased by 54.69 percentage points to a total net countervailable subsidy rate of 22.19 percent.15 The CIT sustained the Department’s remand redetermination on January 25, 2011, in Essar II.16 On February 11, 2011, the Department published the Amended Final Results, amending the total net countervailable subsidy rate for Essar for the period January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007, and cash deposit rate to 22.19 percent.17 The Department instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits for Essar at the cash deposit rate of 22.19 percent. The CIT’s ruling in Essar II was appealed to the CAFC. In Essar III, the CAFC reversed the CIT’s decision concerning the application of AFA with respect to the CIP and upheld the Department’s application of AFA with respect to Essar’s participation in the CIP as supported by substantial evidence.18 Subsequently, the case returned to the CIT, which remanded the case for Commerce to address the outstanding issue of corroboration of the AFA rate the Department had applied to Essar for the CIP in the Final Results.19 The CIT stated that the Department ‘‘explained its methodology for calculating the AFA rate assigned to Essar for its participation in the CIP programs but did not discuss the specific issue of corroboration.’’ 20 Therefore, the Court remanded the case 13 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Essar Steel Limited. v. United States, Court No., 09–00197 (Department of Commerce October 28, 2010) at 16 (Essar I Remand Redetermination). 14 Id. at 16–17. 15 Id. In Essar I Remand Redetermination, the Department inadvertently stated that Essar’s total net countervailable subsidy rate from the Final Results, 76.88 percent, decreased by 54.69 percentage points, to a total net countervailable subsidy rate of 22.19 percent. See also the Amended Final Results. However, Essar’s AFA rate for the CIP in the Final Results was 54.68 percent ad valorem, not 54.69 percent ad valorem. Therefore, the correct AFA rate for Essar is 54.68 percent ad valorem, which is the AFA rate from the Final Results. The final net subsidy rate for Essar is the same rate as the rate from the Final Results, 76.88 ad valorem. 16 See Essar Steel Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 11–10, Court No. 09–197 (Ct Int’l Trade January 25, 2011) (Essar II). 17 Amended Final Results, 76 FR at 7811. 18 See Essar Steel Limited v. United States, 678 F.3d 1268, 1278–1279 (CAFC 2012) (Essar III). 19 Essar Steel Limited v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1332 (CIT 2012) (Essar IV). 20 Essar IV at 1330. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:50 May 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 for the Department to explain how it corroborated Essar’s AFA rate or explain why corroboration is not practicable.21 On January 11, 2013, the Department filed with the CIT its remand results explaining how it corroborated, to the extent practicable, the AFA rate it had assigned to Essar in the Final Results.22 On April 9, 2013, the CIT sustained the Department’s remand results, holding that the Department ‘‘corroborated Essar’s AFA rate to the extent practicable by utilizing calculated benefits from similar programs identified in this CVD proceeding.’’ 23 Amended Final Results The CIT’s April 9, 2013, judgment in Essar V sustaining the Department’s corroboration of the AFA rate for Essar (54.68 percent ad valorem), constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department’s Amended Final Results.24 Because there is now a final CIT decision, the Department amends its Amended Final Results. The following total countervailable net subsidy rate exists for the 2007 period of review: Ad valorem net subsidy rate (percent) Company Essar Steel Limited .............. 76.88 The cash deposit rate for Essar is also 76.88 percent. The Department will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for Essar at the rate indicated. In the event the CIT’s ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on entries of the subject merchandise during the 2007 review period from Essar based on the revised assessment rate determined by the Department. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e), 751(a), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 25, 2013. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2013–10413 Filed 5–1–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 21 Id. at 1331. January 2013 remand results. 23 See Essar V. 24 See section 516A of the Act; Timken, 893 F.2d at 341; Diamond Sawblades, 626 F.3d 1374. 22 See PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XC511 Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fisheries Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment; Request for comments. AGENCY: SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the ‘‘Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (DPEA) for Fisheries Research Conducted and Funded by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC).’’ Publication of this notice begins the official public comment period for this DPEA. The purpose of the DPEA is to evaluate, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of conducting and funding fisheries and ecosystem research along the U.S. West Coast, throughout the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, and in the Scotia Sea area off Antarctica. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 1, 2013. ADDRESSES: Comments on the DPEA should be addressed to Jeremy Rusin, Deputy Director, SWFSC Protected Resources Division, 8901 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037. The mailbox address for providing email comments is SWFSC.DPEA@noaa.gov. NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the DPEA may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: https://swfsc.noaa.gov/dpea.aspx. Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Rusin, SWFSC, NMFS, (858) 546–7101. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SWFSC is the research arm of NMFS in E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM 02MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25701-25702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10413]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-821]


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice 
of Second Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to 
Court Decision

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:  On April 9, 2013, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department) 
January 2013 remand results.\1\ The January 2013 remand results 
explained how the Department corroborated, to the extent practicable, 
the adverse facts available (AFA) rate assigned to Essar Steel Limited 
(Essar) in connection with the State Government of Chhattisgarh 
Industrial Policy (CIP) in the countervailing duty (CVD) administrative 
review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India for 
the 2007 review period (the fifth review period or fifth administrative 
review).\2\ Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,\3\ as clarified by 
Diamond Sawblades,\4\ the Department is notifying the public that the 
final CIT judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's 
Amended Final Results \5\ and is, therefore, amending the Amended Final 
Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Essar Steel Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 13-48, 
Court No. 09-197 (Ct. Int'l Trade April 9, 2013) (Essar V); Results 
of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Essar Steel Limited v. 
United States, Court Number 09-00197, Slip Op. 12-132 (CIT October 
15, 2012) filed with the CIT on January 11, 2013 (January 2013 
remand results).
    \2\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 20,923 (May 6, 2009) (Final Results), 
and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D 
Memorandum). The administrative review covering the 2007 period is 
the fifth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on 
HRCS from India. The administrative review covering the 2006 period 
is the ``fourth'' administrative review. See Final Results, and the 
accompanying I&D Memorandum at ``Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for 
LTAR'' section (referring to the 2006 administrative review as the 
fourth administrative review).
    \3\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \4\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
    \5\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of 
Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision, 76 FR 7810 
(February 11, 2011) (Amended Final Results).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: April 19, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 8, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, C129, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone: 202-482-2209.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On May 6, 2009, the Department published 
its Final Results.\6\ In the Final Results, pursuant to sections 776(a) 
and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department 
applied AFA to find that the subprograms under the CIP constituted 
financial contributions that were specific and that Essar used and 
benefited from the subprograms under the CIP.\7\ The Department 
attempted to calculate an individual rate for Essar based on the 
benefit received from the CIP programs but, because it was unable to 
obtain the necessary information from Essar, it relied on secondary 
information to determine a rate.\8\ Specifically, the Department used 
the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for similar 
programs (from prior segments of this proceeding) involving grants, the 
provision of goods for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR), and 
indirect taxes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Final Results.
    \7\ See Final Results, and the accompanying I&D Memorandum at 3-
7 and Comment 2.
    \8\ Id. at 22-26.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Essar I, the CIT remanded Commerce's AFA determination that 
Essar benefited from the CIP.\10\ The CIT explained that the 
Department's conclusions in its July 2010 remand redetermination 
regarding the fourth administrative review in this proceeding, in which 
the Department found that Essar did not benefit from the CIP based on 
documents on the fourth administrative review remand record, cast 
``grave doubt'' upon the Department's findings that Essar benefited 
from the CIP during the fifth review period.\11\ Thus, the CIT ordered 
the Department to reopen and place on the administrative record of the 
fifth administrative review certain documents from the fourth 
administrative review remand proceeding, and to consider those 
documents in its reassessment of whether Essar benefited from the 
CIP.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Essar Steel Limited v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 
1301 (CIT 2010) (Essar I).
    \11\ Id. at 1300; see also Final Results of Redetermination 
Pursuant to Court Remand, United States Steel Corp. v. United 
States, CIT No., 08-239 (Department of Commerce July 15, 2010) 
(Fourth Administrative Review Redetermination) at 5-6, 22-23.
    \12\ Essar I at 1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 28, 2010, the Department issued its final results of 
redetermination pursuant to Essar I. The remand redetermination 
explained that, in accordance with the CIT's order, and under 
respectful protest, the Department placed certain documents from the 
fourth administrative review remand proceeding on the record of the 
fifth administrative review. In light of certain statements by the CIT 
in Essar I and those documents that the CIT ordered the Department to 
place on the administrative record, the Department reassessed whether 
Essar benefited from the CIP during the fifth review period

[[Page 25702]]

and determined that Essar did not.\13\ The Department's redetermination 
resulted in a change to the Final Results concerning Essar's net 
subsidy rate for the CIP from 54.69 percent to zero.\14\ Therefore, 
Essar's total net countervailable rate from the Final Results, 76.88 
percent, decreased by 54.69 percentage points to a total net 
countervailable subsidy rate of 22.19 percent.\15\ The CIT sustained 
the Department's remand redetermination on January 25, 2011, in Essar 
II.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Essar Steel Limited. v. United States, Court No., 09-00197 
(Department of Commerce October 28, 2010) at 16 (Essar I Remand 
Redetermination).
    \14\ Id. at 16-17.
    \15\ Id. In Essar I Remand Redetermination, the Department 
inadvertently stated that Essar's total net countervailable subsidy 
rate from the Final Results, 76.88 percent, decreased by 54.69 
percentage points, to a total net countervailable subsidy rate of 
22.19 percent. See also the Amended Final Results. However, Essar's 
AFA rate for the CIP in the Final Results was 54.68 percent ad 
valorem, not 54.69 percent ad valorem. Therefore, the correct AFA 
rate for Essar is 54.68 percent ad valorem, which is the AFA rate 
from the Final Results. The final net subsidy rate for Essar is the 
same rate as the rate from the Final Results, 76.88 ad valorem.
    \16\ See Essar Steel Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 11-10, 
Court No. 09-197 (Ct Int'l Trade January 25, 2011) (Essar II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 11, 2011, the Department published the Amended Final 
Results, amending the total net countervailable subsidy rate for Essar 
for the period January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007, and cash 
deposit rate to 22.19 percent.\17\ The Department instructed U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits for Essar 
at the cash deposit rate of 22.19 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Amended Final Results, 76 FR at 7811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT's ruling in Essar II was appealed to the CAFC. In Essar 
III, the CAFC reversed the CIT's decision concerning the application of 
AFA with respect to the CIP and upheld the Department's application of 
AFA with respect to Essar's participation in the CIP as supported by 
substantial evidence.\18\ Subsequently, the case returned to the CIT, 
which remanded the case for Commerce to address the outstanding issue 
of corroboration of the AFA rate the Department had applied to Essar 
for the CIP in the Final Results.\19\ The CIT stated that the 
Department ``explained its methodology for calculating the AFA rate 
assigned to Essar for its participation in the CIP programs but did not 
discuss the specific issue of corroboration.'' \20\ Therefore, the 
Court remanded the case for the Department to explain how it 
corroborated Essar's AFA rate or explain why corroboration is not 
practicable.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Essar Steel Limited v. United States, 678 F.3d 1268, 
1278-1279 (CAFC 2012) (Essar III).
    \19\ Essar Steel Limited v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 
1332 (CIT 2012) (Essar IV).
    \20\ Essar IV at 1330.
    \21\ Id. at 1331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 11, 2013, the Department filed with the CIT its remand 
results explaining how it corroborated, to the extent practicable, the 
AFA rate it had assigned to Essar in the Final Results.\22\ On April 9, 
2013, the CIT sustained the Department's remand results, holding that 
the Department ``corroborated Essar's AFA rate to the extent 
practicable by utilizing calculated benefits from similar programs 
identified in this CVD proceeding.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See January 2013 remand results.
    \23\ See Essar V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    The CIT's April 9, 2013, judgment in Essar V sustaining the 
Department's corroboration of the AFA rate for Essar (54.68 percent ad 
valorem), constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in 
harmony with the Department's Amended Final Results.\24\ Because there 
is now a final CIT decision, the Department amends its Amended Final 
Results. The following total countervailable net subsidy rate exists 
for the 2007 period of review:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See section 516A of the Act; Timken, 893 F.2d at 341; 
Diamond Sawblades, 626 F.3d 1374.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Ad valorem net
                         Company                           subsidy rate
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essar Steel Limited.....................................           76.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cash deposit rate for Essar is also 76.88 percent. The 
Department will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for Essar at the 
rate indicated.
    In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, 
upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct CBP to assess 
countervailing duties on entries of the subject merchandise during the 
2007 review period from Essar based on the revised assessment rate 
determined by the Department.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e), 751(a), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 25, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-10413 Filed 5-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.