Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Taiwan: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 61602-61605 [2014-24375]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
61602
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
initial determination by the individual
concerned appear in 15 CFR part 4,
Appendix B.
RECORD SOURCE CATGEGORIES:
The correspondent, referral source,
Department employees involved in
processing the correspondence, and
other individuals, as required to prepare
an appropriate response and to interact
with correspondent/Department contact.
EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:
None.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation for which
we are measuring subsidies is January 1,
2012, through December 31, 2012.
Dated: October 7, 2014.
Brenda Dolan,
Department of Commerce, Freedom of
Information and Privacy Act Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–24323 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–17–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–583–852]
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From
Taiwan: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) determines that
countervailable subsidies are being
provided to producers and exporters of
non-oriented electrical steel from
Taiwan. For information on the
estimated subsidy rates, see the
‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of
this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: October 14, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Tran or Christopher Hargett,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
CC116, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: 202–482–1503 or 202–482–
4161, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The petitioner in this investigation is
AK Steel Corporation (Petitioner). This
investigation covers 22 government
programs. The mandatory respondents
in this investigation are China Steel
Corporation (CSC) and its cross-owned
affiliates Dragon Steel Corporation
(DSC), HiMag Magnetic Corporation
(HIMAG) and China Steel Global
Trading Corporation (CSGT)
(collectively, CSC Companies) and
Leicong Industrial Company, Ltd.
(Leicong).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
The events that occurred since the
Department published the Preliminary
Determination on March 25, 2014,1 are
discussed in the Memorandum to Paul
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues
and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination in the Countervailing
Duty Investigation of Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from Taiwan’’ (Decision
Memorandum), which is hereby
adopted by this notice.2
Scope Comments
In the AD Initiation Notice,3 the
Department invited interested parties to
‘‘to raise issues regarding product
coverage.’’ On November 22, and 26,
2013, Petitioner requested that the
Department clarify the scope by
lowering the minimum silicon content
from 1.25 percent to 1.00 percent,
removing altogether the maximum
silicon content, and including language
regarding surface oxide coating.4 On
January 28, 2014, POSCO/DWI,5 a
respondent in the companion less than
1 See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from Taiwan:
Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination and
Alignment of Final Determination With Final
Antidumping Determination, 79 FR 16290 (March
25, 2014) (Preliminary Determination).
2 Public versions of all business proprietary
documents and all public documents are on file
electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to
IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
https://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records
Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of
Commerce building.
3 See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the
People’s Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the
Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 78 FR 69041
(November 18, 2013) (AD Initiation Notice);
concurrent antidumping duty (AD) investigation.
4 See Letter from Petitioner to the Department,
‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties against Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from China, Germany, Japan, Korea,
Sweden, Taiwan/Petition Amendment to Clarify the
Proposed Scope Definition,’’ dated November 22,
2013 (‘‘Petitioner’s Proposed Scope Changes’’); and
Letter from Petitioner, ‘‘Non-Oriented Electrical
Steel from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden,
Taiwan: Petitioner’s Comments on the Scope of
Investigations,’’ dated November 26, 2013.
5 On January 23, 2014, POSCO and Daewoo
International Corporation (DWI) filed a joint
response in the concurrent LTFV investigation of
NOES from Korea. The Department preliminarily
found these two companies to be a single entity in
the AD investigation. See the memorandum from
Senior Advisor, Gary Taverman, to Acting Assistant
Secretary, Ronald K. Lorentzen entitled ‘‘Decision
Memorandum for the Preliminary Affirmative
Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation of Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from
the Republic of Korea’’ dated May 15, 2014.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
fair value (LTFV) investigation of NOES
from the Republic of Korea, filed scope
comments with the Department in
which it requested that the Department
clarify whether laminations and cores,
downstream products fabricated from
NOES, and certain NOES specifications
with silicon content less than the
percentage identified in the scope of
NOES investigations contained in the
AD Initiation Notice, are covered by this
and the companion investigations.6 On
February 4, 2014, Petitioner responded
to POSCO/DWI’s comments, stating (1)
that laminations and cores are out of the
scope of the investigations to the extent
that exclusion only covers products that
are suitable for use (without further
processing) as a drop-in part of a core;
and (2) that the Department should
promptly implement the changes to the
scope of the investigations relating to
silicon content described in Petitioner’s
Proposed Scope Changes, and clarify for
POSCO/DWI the data that it should
report to the Department.7
After analyzing the scope comments
regarding silicon content and surface
oxide coatings, the Department decided
to lower the minimum silicon content
identified in the scope from 1.25
percent to 1.00 percent and to include
language regarding surface oxide coating
in the scope. However, the Department
decided not to eliminate the maximum
silicon content in the scope. For a
complete discussion of these decisions
see the memorandum to Christian
Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations from Robert Bolling,
Program Manager for AD/CVD
Operations, Office IV, regarding ‘‘Scope
Modification Requests,’’ dated April 10,
2014, and hereby incorporated by
reference into this memorandum. The
scope language below reflects these
decisions.
With respect to the issue involving
laminations and cores, POSCO/DWI
described laminations as products that
are cut from NOES into their finished
shape by a punch and die or, when in
smaller quantities, by laser or wire
erosion.8 The laminations are
subsequently assembled together to
form laminated transformer cores or
electric motor stator and rotor parts.9
6 See Letter from POSCO/DWI to the Department,
‘‘Scope Clarification Requests,’’ dated January 28,
2014.
7 See Letter from Petitioner to the Department,
‘‘Re: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from China,
Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden and Taiwan/
Petitioner’s Response to POSCO’s Scope
Clarification Requests,’’ dated February 4, 2014.
8 See Letter from POSCO/DWI to the Department,
‘‘Scope Clarification Requests,’’ dated January 28,
2014, at 3.
9 Id., at 3–4.
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
POSCO/DWI commented that it
understands that laminations and cores
manufactured from NOES are products
not subject to these investigations
because NOES is manufactured in sheet
or strip form, either in coils or in
straight lengths, and any subsequent
processing is not simply an extension of
the NOES production process, but,
instead, processing performed by the
end user or by a fabricator that sells to
the end user.10 POSCO/DWI commented
that NOES is consumed exclusively in
the production of laminated cores for
transformers as well as stators and
rotors for motors, and generators.11
Depending on the design requirements
of an end user, the standard lamination
products are cut ‘‘E,’’ ‘‘I,’’ or ‘‘U,’’ or
varying combinations thereof, while
highly complex lamination products are
customized with numerous sides,
curved edges, or numerous punched
holes.12 POSCO/DWI commented that
the process of converting NOES coil or
strip into laminations or cores
constitutes a substantial transformation
into products with end uses and
customer expectations different from
those for NOES.13
In its reply to POSCO/DWI’s scope
clarification request, Petitioner stated
that it agrees with POSCO/DWI that
laminations and cores are outside the
intended scope of the NOES
investigations.14 Petitioner commented
that to the extent the term
‘‘laminations’’ is used as a substitute for
the term laminated ‘‘cores,’’ Petitioner
likewise agrees that laminations that are
ready for assembly into cores are
excluded from the intended scope of the
NOES investigations.15 Petitioner noted
that it does not agree with POSCO/DWI
that the production process for NOES
necessarily ends with slitting; because
the scope definition covers NOES
‘‘whether or not in coils,’’ simply
cutting to length or cutting blanks from
10 POSCO refers to the production process for
NOES described in the petitions and in the
International Trade Commission’s preliminary
determination that POSCO understands to mean
that the NOES production process ends with
slitting. Id., at 4.
11 See Letter from POSCO/DWI to the
Department, ‘‘Scope Clarification Requests,’’ dated
January 28, 2014, at 3–4.
12 Id., at 4–5.
13 Id., at 5.
14 See Letter from Petitioner to the Department,
‘‘Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from China,
Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden and Taiwan/
Petitioner’s Response to POSCO’s Scope
Clarification Requests,’’ dated February 4, 2014, at
2.
15 See id. Referring to POSCO/DWI’s Scope
Comments, Petitioner interprets POSCO/DWI’s
statement, that POSCO/DWI uses the terms
laminations and cores interchangeably in the
normal course of business, to mean that laminations
are a substitute for cores.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
a coil (whether slit or not) does not take
such products out of the scope.16
Petitioner stated that it agrees
nevertheless with POSCO/DWI that
laminations cut from NOES to their
finished shape and are otherwise
suitable for use, without further
processing, as a drop-in part of the core,
are outside the intended scope of the
NOES investigations.17
On the basis of Petitioner’s statements
that it is not seeking relief from
laminations and cores made from NOES,
we modified the scope to reflect this
exclusion.18
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise subject to this
investigation consists of NOES, which
includes cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy
steel products, whether or not in coils,
regardless of width, having an actual
thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which
the core loss is substantially equal in
any direction of magnetization in the
plane of the material. The term
‘‘substantially equal’’ means that the
cross grain direction of core loss is no
more than 1.5 times the straight grain
direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of
core loss. NOES has a magnetic
permeability that does not exceed 1.65
Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/
m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e.,
parallel to) the rolling direction of the
sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains
by weight more than 1.00 percent of
silicon but less than 3.5 percent of
silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of
carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent
of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide
coating, to which an insulation coating
may be applied.
The subject merchandise is provided
for in subheadings 7225.19.0000,
7226.19.1000, and 7226.19.9000 of the
HTSUS. Subject merchandise may also
be entered under subheadings
7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090,
7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050,
7226.92.8050, 7226.99.0180 of the
HTSUS. Although HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written
description of the scope is dispositive.19
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 See Letter from Petitioner to the Department,
‘‘Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from The People’s
Republic of China, Germany, Japan, The Republic
of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Scope Clarification
Language,’’ dated May 12, 2014.
19 For a full description of the scope of this
investigation, see the memorandum from Gary
Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations
to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination in the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61603
Analysis of Subsidy Programs and
Comments Received
The subsidy programs under
investigation and the issues raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by
parties in this investigation are
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, dated concurrently with
this notice. A list of subsidy programs
and the issues that parties raised, and to
which we responded in the Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice
as Appendix I.
The Issues and Decision and Scope
Memoranda are public documents and
are on file electronically via
Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all
parties in the Central Records Unit,
room 7046 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition,
complete versions of the Issues and
Decision and Scope Memoranda can be
accessed directly at https://enforcement.
trade.gov/frn/. The signed
and the electronic versions of these
memoranda are identical in content.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available,
Including Adverse Inferences
For purposes of this final
determination, we continue to apply
adverse facts available (AFA) to Leicong
in accordance with sections 776(a) and
(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act). A full discussion of our
decision to rely on AFA is presented in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
under the section ‘‘Use of Facts
Otherwise Available and Adverse
Inferences.’’
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section
705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated
a rate for each respondent. Section
705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for
companies not individually
investigated, we will determine an ‘‘all
others’’ rate equal to the weighted
average countervailable subsidy rates
established for exporters and producers
individually investigated, excluding any
zero and de minimis countervailable
subsidy rates, and any rates determined
entirely under section 776 of the Act. If
the rates established for all exporters
and producers individually investigated
are zero, de minimis, or determined
entirely under facts available, the
Department may use any reasonable
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from Taiwan’’ (Issues and Decision
Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
61604
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
method to establish an all-others rate.20
Leicong’s rate was determined entirely
under facts available with an adverse
inference. The CSC Companies’ rate is
de minimis. Thus, in accordance with
section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we
are applying as the all others rate the
average of the rate calculated for
Leicong and the rate calculated for the
CSC Companies.
We determine the total estimated net
countervailable subsidy rates to be:
Subsidy rate
(percent)
Producer/exporter
China Steel Corporation (CSC) and its cross-owned affiliates Dragon Steel Corporation (DSC), HiMag Magnetic Corporation (HIMAG) and China Steel Global Trading Corporation (CSGT)(collectively, CSC Companies.).
Leicong Industrial Company, Ltd (Leicong) .................................................................................................................................
All Others .....................................................................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
As a result of our Preliminary
Determination and pursuant to section
703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
suspend liquidation of all entries of
subject merchandise from Taiwan 21
which were entered or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
March 25, 2014, the date of the
publication of the Preliminary
Determination in the Federal Register.
In accordance with section 703(d) of the
Act, we later issued instructions to CBP
to discontinue the suspension of
liquidation for countervailing duty
(CVD) purposes for subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
on or after July 23, 2014, but to continue
the suspension of liquidation of all
entries 22 from March 25, 2014, through
July 22, 2014.
If the U.S. International Trade
Commission (ITC) issues a final
affirmative injury determination, we
will issue a CVD order and reinstate the
suspension of liquidation under section
706(a) of the Act and will require a cash
deposit of estimated CVDs for such
entries of merchandise in the amounts
indicated above, other than those
produced and exported by the CSC
Companies because the CSC Companies’
rate is de minimis. If the ITC determines
that material injury, or threat of material
injury, does not exist, this proceeding
will be terminated and all estimated
duties deposited or securities posted as
a result of the suspension of liquidation
will be refunded or canceled.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary
information related to this investigation.
We will allow the ITC access to all
privileged and business proprietary
information in our files, provided the
ITC confirms that it will not disclose
such information, either publicly or
20 See
section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
under an administrative protective order
(APO), without the written consent of
the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final
negative injury determination, this
notice will serve as the only reminder
to parties subject to an APO of their
responsibility concerning the
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation that is subject to
sanction.
This determination is published
pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: October 6, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix I
List of Subsidy Programs and Issues in the
Decision Memorandum
A. Programs Determined To Be
Countervailable
1. Tariff Exemption for Imported
Equipment
2. Income Tax Credit for Upgraded
Equipment
3. Shareholder’s Investment Tax Credit for
Participation in Infrastructure Projects
4. Shareholder’s Investment Tax Credit for
Investment in Newly Emerging,
Important and Strategic Industries
5. Conventional Industry Technology
Development
6. Self-Evaluation Service
7. Building and Land Value Tax Deduction
for Supplying to Major Infrastructure
Projects
8. Major Infrastructure Projects—Land
Lease Program
B. Program Determined To Be Not
21 Other than entries produced and/or exported
by the CSC Companies for which we calculated a
de minimis rate in the Preliminary Determination.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0.48 (de minimis).
17.12.
8.80.
Countervailable
1. Income Tax Credit for Research and
Development Expenses
2. Partial Payment for Electricity Bill of
Strong-Motion Observation Station
C. Programs Determined To Not Confer a
Benefit During the POI
1. Industrial Technology Development
Program
2. Strengthen the Ability of Emerging
Development Program
3. Subsidy for Certain Photovoltaic Power
Stations
4. Payment for Trade Remedy Proceedings
5. Five-Year Income Tax Exemption
Incentive for New Investments
6. Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventory
D. Programs Determined To Be Not Used
1. Income Tax Credits for Investment in
Designated Regions
2. Income Tax Credits for Participating in
Infrastructure Projects
3. Grants for Developing an International
Image and Brand
4. Subsidies for Companies that Invest in
Industrial Parks
E. Programs for Which More Information is
Necessary
1. Sustainable Employment Program
F. Comments From Interested Parties
Comment 1: Whether the CSC Companies
Were Disproportionate Users of Certain
Programs
Comment 2: Whether the Industrial
Technology Development Program and
the Ability of Emerging Development
Program are Separate Programs
Comment 3: Whether Certain Programs Are
De Facto Specific by Virtue of Limited
Use
Comment 4: Whether Benefits Under the
Grants for Photovoltaic Power Stations
(SCPPS) Program Are Tied to NonSubject Subject Merchandise
Comment 5: Whether the Department
Should Apply Total AFA to Leicong
Comment 6: Whether the Department
Should not Include Certain Programs in
Leicong’s Total AFA Rate
Comment 7: Whether Subsidies Under the
Companies that Invest in Industrial Parks
and Major Infrastructure Projects—Land
Lease Programs Are Separate Programs
Comment 8: Whether the Department
Should Use Benefit and Sales Data from
the TA to Calculate a Rate for Leicong
22 Id.
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
with Regard to the Conventional
Industry Technology Development
Program and the Self Evaluation Service
Program
Comment 9: Whether the Verification of
Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory
Program is Countervailable with Regard
Leicong
Comment 10: Corroboration of the AFA
Rate Applied to Leicong
Comment 11: Calculation of the All-Others
Rate
[FR Doc. 2014–24375 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–580–873]
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the
Republic of Korea: Final Negative
Countervailing Duty Determination and
Final Negative Critical Circumstances
Determination
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) determines that de
minimis countervailable subsidies are
being provided to producers/exporters
of non-oriented electrical steel (NOES)
from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The
period of investigation is January 1,
2012, through December 31, 2012.
DATES: Effective Date: October 14, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Morris or Thomas Schauer, AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1779 and (202)
482–0410, respectively.
AGENCY:
Background
The petitioner in this investigation is
AK Steel Corporation (Petitioner). This
investigation covers 29 government
programs. In addition to the
Government of Korea (GOK), the
respondents in this investigation are
POSCO and Daewoo International
Corporation (DWI).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Case History
The following events have occurred
since the Department published the
Preliminary Determination on March 25,
2014.1
1 See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Negative
Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary
Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, and
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
On May 8, 2014, the Department
issued a post-preliminary analysis
memorandum.2 The Department
conducted verification of the GOK,
POSCO, and DWI’s questionnaire
responses from May 13, through May
23, 2014, and issued verification reports
on June 24, 2014. The GOK submitted
a case brief on July 8, 2014. No other
party submitted a case or rebuttal brief.
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise subject to this
investigation consists of NOES, which
includes cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy
steel products, whether or not in coils,
regardless of width, having an actual
thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which
the core loss is substantially equal in
any direction of magnetization in the
plane of the material. For a complete
description of the scope of the
investigation, see Appendix I to this
notice.
Analysis of Subsidy Programs and
Comments Received
The subsidy programs under
investigation and the issues raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in
this investigation are discussed in the
Memorandum to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final
Determination in the Countervailing
Duty Investigation of Non-Oriented
Electrical Steel from the Republic of
Korea’’ (Issues and Decision
Memorandum),3 which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of subsidy
programs and the issues that parties
have raised, and to which we responded
in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice
as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via IA ACCESS.
In addition, a complete version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum can
be accessed directly on the Internet at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/
index.html. The signed Issues and
Decision Memorandum and the
Determination With Final Antidumping Duty
Determination, 79 FR 16295 (March 25, 2014)
(Preliminary Determination).
2 See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘PostPreliminary Analysis in the Countervailing Duty
Investigation: Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from
the Republic of Korea (Korea)’’ (May 8, 2014).
3 Public versions of all business proprietary
documents and all public documents are on file
electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to
IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
https://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Department’s
Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61605
electronic version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Critical Circumstances
On February 25, 2014, Petitioner
alleged that critical circumstances exist
with respect to imports of NOES from
Korea. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.206(c)(2)(i), we issued a negative
preliminary critical circumstances
determination not later than the date of
the preliminary determination. For this
is final determination, since we do not
find that POSCO benefitted from any
subsidies inconsistent with the World
Trade Organization Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures,4 we have not analyzed
whether there were massive imports of
the subject merchandise over a
relatively short period. Accordingly,
pursuant section 705(a)(2) of the Act, we
do not find that critical circumstances
exist with regard to imports of NOES
from Korea.
Final Determination
As discussed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum, we attributed
the benefit from subsidies to DWI to the
combined sales of DWI and POSCO (less
inter-company sales). In accordance
with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we
calculated a de minimis rate for POSCO/
DWI.
We determine the total estimated net
countervailable subsidy rates to be:
Company
POSCO and Daewoo
International Corporation.
Subsidy rate
0.65 percent (ad
valorem).
Consistent with section 705(c)(1)(B) of
the Act, the Department has not
calculated an all-others rate because it
has not reached an affirmative final
determination. Because the estimated
subsidy margins for the examined
companies are de minimis, we are not
directing U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to suspend liquidation of
entries of NOES from Korea.
United States International Trade
Commission (USITC) Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we notified the USITC of our
final determination. As our final
determination is negative, this
proceeding is terminated.
4 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
‘‘Programs Determined to be Countervailable.’’
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61602-61605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24375]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-583-852]
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Taiwan: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters
of non-oriented electrical steel from Taiwan. For information on the
estimated subsidy rates, see the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section
of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: October 14, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Tran or Christopher Hargett,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room CC116, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: 202-482-1503 or 202-482-4161, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The petitioner in this investigation is AK Steel Corporation
(Petitioner). This investigation covers 22 government programs. The
mandatory respondents in this investigation are China Steel Corporation
(CSC) and its cross-owned affiliates Dragon Steel Corporation (DSC),
HiMag Magnetic Corporation (HIMAG) and China Steel Global Trading
Corporation (CSGT) (collectively, CSC Companies) and Leicong Industrial
Company, Ltd. (Leicong).
The events that occurred since the Department published the
Preliminary Determination on March 25, 2014,\1\ are discussed in the
Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination in the Countervailing Duty
Investigation of Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from Taiwan'' (Decision
Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from Taiwan: Preliminary
Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final
Determination With Final Antidumping Determination, 79 FR 16290
(March 25, 2014) (Preliminary Determination).
\2\ Public versions of all business proprietary documents and
all public documents are on file electronically via Enforcement and
Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is
available to registered users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov and in
the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of
Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies is
January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012.
Scope Comments
In the AD Initiation Notice,\3\ the Department invited interested
parties to ``to raise issues regarding product coverage.'' On November
22, and 26, 2013, Petitioner requested that the Department clarify the
scope by lowering the minimum silicon content from 1.25 percent to 1.00
percent, removing altogether the maximum silicon content, and including
language regarding surface oxide coating.\4\ On January 28, 2014,
POSCO/DWI,\5\ a respondent in the companion less than fair value (LTFV)
investigation of NOES from the Republic of Korea, filed scope comments
with the Department in which it requested that the Department clarify
whether laminations and cores, downstream products fabricated from
NOES, and certain NOES specifications with silicon content less than
the percentage identified in the scope of NOES investigations contained
in the AD Initiation Notice, are covered by this and the companion
investigations.\6\ On February 4, 2014, Petitioner responded to POSCO/
DWI's comments, stating (1) that laminations and cores are out of the
scope of the investigations to the extent that exclusion only covers
products that are suitable for use (without further processing) as a
drop-in part of a core; and (2) that the Department should promptly
implement the changes to the scope of the investigations relating to
silicon content described in Petitioner's Proposed Scope Changes, and
clarify for POSCO/DWI the data that it should report to the
Department.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People's Republic
of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 78 FR 69041 (November
18, 2013) (AD Initiation Notice); concurrent antidumping duty (AD)
investigation.
\4\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, ``Petitions
for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties against
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from China, Germany, Japan, Korea,
Sweden, Taiwan/Petition Amendment to Clarify the Proposed Scope
Definition,'' dated November 22, 2013 (``Petitioner's Proposed Scope
Changes''); and Letter from Petitioner, ``Non-Oriented Electrical
Steel from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, Taiwan:
Petitioner's Comments on the Scope of Investigations,'' dated
November 26, 2013.
\5\ On January 23, 2014, POSCO and Daewoo International
Corporation (DWI) filed a joint response in the concurrent LTFV
investigation of NOES from Korea. The Department preliminarily found
these two companies to be a single entity in the AD investigation.
See the memorandum from Senior Advisor, Gary Taverman, to Acting
Assistant Secretary, Ronald K. Lorentzen entitled ``Decision
Memorandum for the Preliminary Affirmative Determination in the
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Non-Oriented Electrical Steel
from the Republic of Korea'' dated May 15, 2014.
\6\ See Letter from POSCO/DWI to the Department, ``Scope
Clarification Requests,'' dated January 28, 2014.
\7\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, ``Re: Non-
Oriented Electrical Steel from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden
and Taiwan/Petitioner's Response to POSCO's Scope Clarification
Requests,'' dated February 4, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After analyzing the scope comments regarding silicon content and
surface oxide coatings, the Department decided to lower the minimum
silicon content identified in the scope from 1.25 percent to 1.00
percent and to include language regarding surface oxide coating in the
scope. However, the Department decided not to eliminate the maximum
silicon content in the scope. For a complete discussion of these
decisions see the memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations from
Robert Bolling, Program Manager for AD/CVD Operations, Office IV,
regarding ``Scope Modification Requests,'' dated April 10, 2014, and
hereby incorporated by reference into this memorandum. The scope
language below reflects these decisions.
With respect to the issue involving laminations and cores, POSCO/
DWI described laminations as products that are cut from NOES into their
finished shape by a punch and die or, when in smaller quantities, by
laser or wire erosion.\8\ The laminations are subsequently assembled
together to form laminated transformer cores or electric motor stator
and rotor parts.\9\
[[Page 61603]]
POSCO/DWI commented that it understands that laminations and cores
manufactured from NOES are products not subject to these investigations
because NOES is manufactured in sheet or strip form, either in coils or
in straight lengths, and any subsequent processing is not simply an
extension of the NOES production process, but, instead, processing
performed by the end user or by a fabricator that sells to the end
user.\10\ POSCO/DWI commented that NOES is consumed exclusively in the
production of laminated cores for transformers as well as stators and
rotors for motors, and generators.\11\ Depending on the design
requirements of an end user, the standard lamination products are cut
``E,'' ``I,'' or ``U,'' or varying combinations thereof, while highly
complex lamination products are customized with numerous sides, curved
edges, or numerous punched holes.\12\ POSCO/DWI commented that the
process of converting NOES coil or strip into laminations or cores
constitutes a substantial transformation into products with end uses
and customer expectations different from those for NOES.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Letter from POSCO/DWI to the Department, ``Scope
Clarification Requests,'' dated January 28, 2014, at 3.
\9\ Id., at 3-4.
\10\ POSCO refers to the production process for NOES described
in the petitions and in the International Trade Commission's
preliminary determination that POSCO understands to mean that the
NOES production process ends with slitting. Id., at 4.
\11\ See Letter from POSCO/DWI to the Department, ``Scope
Clarification Requests,'' dated January 28, 2014, at 3-4.
\12\ Id., at 4-5.
\13\ Id., at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its reply to POSCO/DWI's scope clarification request, Petitioner
stated that it agrees with POSCO/DWI that laminations and cores are
outside the intended scope of the NOES investigations.\14\ Petitioner
commented that to the extent the term ``laminations'' is used as a
substitute for the term laminated ``cores,'' Petitioner likewise agrees
that laminations that are ready for assembly into cores are excluded
from the intended scope of the NOES investigations.\15\ Petitioner
noted that it does not agree with POSCO/DWI that the production process
for NOES necessarily ends with slitting; because the scope definition
covers NOES ``whether or not in coils,'' simply cutting to length or
cutting blanks from a coil (whether slit or not) does not take such
products out of the scope.\16\ Petitioner stated that it agrees
nevertheless with POSCO/DWI that laminations cut from NOES to their
finished shape and are otherwise suitable for use, without further
processing, as a drop-in part of the core, are outside the intended
scope of the NOES investigations.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, ``Non-
Oriented Electrical Steel from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden
and Taiwan/Petitioner's Response to POSCO's Scope Clarification
Requests,'' dated February 4, 2014, at 2.
\15\ See id. Referring to POSCO/DWI's Scope Comments, Petitioner
interprets POSCO/DWI's statement, that POSCO/DWI uses the terms
laminations and cores interchangeably in the normal course of
business, to mean that laminations are a substitute for cores.
\16\ Id.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the basis of Petitioner's statements that it is not seeking
relief from laminations and cores made from NOES, we modified the scope
to reflect this exclusion.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, ``Non-
Oriented Electrical Steel from The People's Republic of China,
Germany, Japan, The Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Scope
Clarification Language,'' dated May 12, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise subject to this investigation consists of NOES,
which includes cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether
or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of
0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any
direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term
``substantially equal'' means that the cross grain direction of core
loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the
rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that
does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m
(equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling
direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by
weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of
silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5
percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an
insulation coating may be applied.
The subject merchandise is provided for in subheadings
7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, and 7226.19.9000 of the HTSUS. Subject
merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 7225.50.8085,
7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, 7226.92.8050, 7226.99.0180 of
the HTSUS. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope is
dispositive.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
see the memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance,
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination in the Countervailing Duty
Investigation of Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from Taiwan'' (Issues
and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by parties in this investigation
are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently
with this notice. A list of subsidy programs and the issues that
parties raised, and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum,
is attached to this notice as Appendix I.
The Issues and Decision and Scope Memoranda are public documents
and are on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service
System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
https://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the
Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce
building. In addition, complete versions of the Issues and Decision and
Scope Memoranda can be accessed directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic
versions of these memoranda are identical in content.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available, Including Adverse Inferences
For purposes of this final determination, we continue to apply
adverse facts available (AFA) to Leicong in accordance with sections
776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). A full
discussion of our decision to rely on AFA is presented in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum under the section ``Use of Facts Otherwise
Available and Adverse Inferences.''
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we
calculated a rate for each respondent. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the
Act states that for companies not individually investigated, we will
determine an ``all others'' rate equal to the weighted average
countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers
individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis
countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under
section 776 of the Act. If the rates established for all exporters and
producers individually investigated are zero, de minimis, or determined
entirely under facts available, the Department may use any reasonable
[[Page 61604]]
method to establish an all-others rate.\20\ Leicong's rate was
determined entirely under facts available with an adverse inference.
The CSC Companies' rate is de minimis. Thus, in accordance with section
705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we are applying as the all others rate the
average of the rate calculated for Leicong and the rate calculated for
the CSC Companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates
to be:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/exporter Subsidy rate (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Steel Corporation (CSC) and its 0.48 (de minimis).
cross-owned affiliates Dragon Steel
Corporation (DSC), HiMag Magnetic
Corporation (HIMAG) and China Steel
Global Trading Corporation
(CSGT)(collectively, CSC Companies.).
Leicong Industrial Company, Ltd 17.12.
(Leicong).
All Others............................ 8.80.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to
section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject
merchandise from Taiwan \21\ which were entered or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after March 25, 2014, the date of the
publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we later issued
instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for
countervailing duty (CVD) purposes for subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, on or after July 23, 2014, but to continue
the suspension of liquidation of all entries \22\ from March 25, 2014,
through July 22, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Other than entries produced and/or exported by the CSC
Companies for which we calculated a de minimis rate in the
Preliminary Determination.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final
affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and
reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act
and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of
merchandise in the amounts indicated above, other than those produced
and exported by the CSC Companies because the CSC Companies' rate is de
minimis. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of
material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and
all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the
suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or
under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties
subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation that is subject to sanction.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: October 6, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
List of Subsidy Programs and Issues in the Decision Memorandum
A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable
1. Tariff Exemption for Imported Equipment
2. Income Tax Credit for Upgraded Equipment
3. Shareholder's Investment Tax Credit for Participation in
Infrastructure Projects
4. Shareholder's Investment Tax Credit for Investment in Newly
Emerging, Important and Strategic Industries
5. Conventional Industry Technology Development
6. Self-Evaluation Service
7. Building and Land Value Tax Deduction for Supplying to Major
Infrastructure Projects
8. Major Infrastructure Projects--Land Lease Program
B. Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable
1. Income Tax Credit for Research and Development Expenses
2. Partial Payment for Electricity Bill of Strong-Motion
Observation Station
C. Programs Determined To Not Confer a Benefit During the POI
1. Industrial Technology Development Program
2. Strengthen the Ability of Emerging Development Program
3. Subsidy for Certain Photovoltaic Power Stations
4. Payment for Trade Remedy Proceedings
5. Five-Year Income Tax Exemption Incentive for New Investments
6. Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory
D. Programs Determined To Be Not Used
1. Income Tax Credits for Investment in Designated Regions
2. Income Tax Credits for Participating in Infrastructure
Projects
3. Grants for Developing an International Image and Brand
4. Subsidies for Companies that Invest in Industrial Parks
E. Programs for Which More Information is Necessary
1. Sustainable Employment Program
F. Comments From Interested Parties
Comment 1: Whether the CSC Companies Were Disproportionate Users
of Certain Programs
Comment 2: Whether the Industrial Technology Development Program
and the Ability of Emerging Development Program are Separate
Programs
Comment 3: Whether Certain Programs Are De Facto Specific by
Virtue of Limited Use
Comment 4: Whether Benefits Under the Grants for Photovoltaic
Power Stations (SCPPS) Program Are Tied to Non-Subject Subject
Merchandise
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Apply Total AFA to
Leicong
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should not Include Certain
Programs in Leicong's Total AFA Rate
Comment 7: Whether Subsidies Under the Companies that Invest in
Industrial Parks and Major Infrastructure Projects--Land Lease
Programs Are Separate Programs
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Use Benefit and Sales
Data from the TA to Calculate a Rate for Leicong
[[Page 61605]]
with Regard to the Conventional Industry Technology Development
Program and the Self Evaluation Service Program
Comment 9: Whether the Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventory Program is Countervailable with Regard Leicong
Comment 10: Corroboration of the AFA Rate Applied to Leicong
Comment 11: Calculation of the All-Others Rate
[FR Doc. 2014-24375 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
