Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 69641-69643 [2015-28623]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices
with the statute.17 Accordingly, the
CAFC held that the Department must
include rates calculated for voluntary
respondents in determining an allothers rate.18 As the Department had not
used the rates calculated for the
voluntary respondents in the underlying
investigation to determine the all-others
rate, the CAFC therefore held that the
Department was required to recalculate
the all-others rate using the voluntary
respondents’ rates. The CIT
subsequently remanded the issue to the
Department for reconsideration in light
of the CAFC’s holding.19
On remand, the Department
recalculated the all-others rate using a
simple average of the voluntary
respondents’ rates.20 Section
705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act provides that,
in general, the all-others rate ‘‘shall be
an amount equal to the weighted
average countervailable subsidy rates
established for exporters and producers
individually investigated . . . .’’
However, the Department explained in
the Third Remand Results that the use
of a weighted average would have
revealed the proprietary information of
the voluntary respondents to each
other.21
Petitioners 22 argued that the
Department should have requested
publicly ranged versions of proprietary
data on the record from the voluntary
respondents to use in its calculation of
the all-others rate, but in the Third
Remand Results, the Department
instead calculated the all-others rate
using a simple average of the rates of the
two voluntary respondents, which
resulted in a rate of 7.42 percent.23
After considering the Third Remand
Results, the CIT remanded to the
Department the all-others rate
calculation, explaining that the ‘‘statute
unequivocally and without exception
requires that the Department base the
all-others rate on the weighted average
of individually-investigated non-zero,
non-de minimis, non-AFA rates.’’ 24
Furthermore, the CIT emphasized that
19 CFR 351.304(c)(1) requires all
proprietary information ‘‘to be
accompanied by public versions ‘in
sufficient detail to permit a reasonable
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17 See
MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States (CAFC),
753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
18 Id., at 1245.
19 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 32 F.
Supp. 3d 1358 (CIT 2014) (MacLean-Fogg V).
20 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, dated March 17, 2015 (Third
Remand Results) at 6, available at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/remands.
21 Id.
22 Petitioners are the Aluminum Extrusions Fair
Trade Committee.
23 See Third Remand Result.
24 See MacLean-Fogg Remand Order, at 21.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Nov 09, 2015
Jkt 238001
understanding of the substance of the
information.’ ’’ 25 The CIT thus directed
the Department on remand to either
request the publicly ranged data from
the voluntary respondents, or publicly
range the companies’ information itself,
and reconsider its determination to use
a simple average of their subsidy rates.26
The Department requested and
received from the voluntary respondents
(i.e., Guang Ya Companies and Zhongya
Companies) their publicly ranged sales
value and volume data for exports of
subject merchandise to the United
States during the 2009 investigation
period. Using that data, the Department
calculated a weighted-average all-others
subsidy rate of 7.37 percent.27 In
accordance with the MacLean-Fogg
Remand Order, the Department
reconsidered its decision to rely on the
simple average of the voluntary
respondents’ rates in determining the
all-others rate.28 Specifically, because
the subsidy rate determined based on
the publicly ranged data, rather than the
subsidy rate determined based on a
simple average, is closer to the subsidy
rate that would have resulted from
weighting the voluntary respondents’
rates based on proprietary sales values,
the Department revised the all-others
rate to 7.37 percent in its Final Remand
Results.29
On October 23, 2015, in MacLean
Fogg Remand Order, the CIT affirmed
the Department’s Final Remand Results,
upholding that the Department’s allothers rate of 7.37 percent.30
Amended Final Determination
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to the Final
Determination, the Department amends
its Final Determination. The following
revised net subsidy rate exists:
Company
Subsidy rate
All-Others .............
7.37 percent ad valorem.
For companies subject to the allothers rate, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate listed above and the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection accordingly. This notice is
issued and published in accordance
with sections 705(d) and 777(i)(1) of the
25 Id.,
at 30.
at 31.
27 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, dated October 15, 2015 (Final
Remand Results), available at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/remands.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 See MacLean Fogg Co., et al. v. United States,
Slip Op. 15–119, Court No. 11–00209 (October 23,
2015).
26 Id.,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69641
Act and consistent with the clarification
in Diamond Sawblades.
Dated: November 4, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–28668 Filed 11–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–830]
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod From Mexico: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2013–2014
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on carbon and
certain alloy steel wire rod (wire rod)
from Mexico. The period of review
(POR) is October 1, 2013 through
September 30, 2014.1 This review
covers two producers/exporters of
subject merchandise: ArcelorMittal Las
Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT) and
Deacero S.A. de C.V. We preliminarily
determine that AMLT and Deacero
made sales of subject merchandise at
less than normal value (NV) during the
POR. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective date: November 10,
2015.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Terpstra (for Deacero) or Jolanta
Lawska (for AMLT), AD/CVD
Operations, Office III, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: 202–482–3965 and 202–482–
8362, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the Wire
Rod Order is carbon and certain alloy
steel wire rod. The product is currently
classified under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
item numbers 7213.91.3000,
7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011,
1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil,
Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago,
and Ukraine 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002) (Wire
Rod Order).
E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
10NON1
69642
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices
7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020,
7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3091,
7213.91.3092, 7213.91.3093,
7213.91.4500, 7213.91.4510,
7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6000,
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090,
7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0031,
7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090,
7227.20.0000, 7227.20.0010,
7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0030,
7227.20.0080, 7227.20.0090,
7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010,
7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030,
7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6050,
7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053,
7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059,
7227.90.6080, and 7227.90.6085 of the
HTSUS. Although the HTS numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written product
description remains dispositive.2
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Methodology
The Department is conducting this
review in accordance with section
751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). Constructed export
prices or export price are calculated in
accordance with section 772 of the Act.
Normal value is calculated in
accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the
methodology underlying our
conclusions, please see the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum, which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the
topics discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum is attached as an
appendix to this notice. The Preliminary
Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file electronically
via Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(ACCESS). ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
access.trade.gov, and it is available to
all parties in the Central Records Unit
(CRU), Room B8024 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Preliminary Decision Memorandum can
be accessed directly on the Internet at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/
index.html. The signed Preliminary
Decision Memorandum and the
electronic versions of the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
2 For a complete description of the scope of the
order, see Memorandum from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for
Preliminary Results of 2013/14 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Mexico’’ (Preliminary Decision
Memorandum), dated concurrently with these
preliminary results.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Nov 09, 2015
Jkt 238001
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily determine that the
weighted-average dumping margins for
the POR are as follows:
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Producer/exporter
Deacero S.A. de C.V ............
ArcelorMittal Las Truchas,
S.A. de C.V .......................
72.95
12.38
Assessment Rate
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department shall determine, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review. For any individually examined
respondents whose weighted-average
dumping margin is above de minimis,
we will calculate importer-specific ad
valorem duty assessment rates based on
the ratio of the total amount of dumping
calculated for the importer’s examined
sales to the total entered value of those
same sales in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).3 We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review when the importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent). Where
either the respondent’s weightedaverage dumping margin is zero or de
minimis, or an importer-specific
assessment rate is zero or de minimis,
we will instruct CBP to liquidate the
appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties. 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 this review where
applicable.
In accordance with the Department’s
‘‘automatic assessment’’ practice, for
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR produced by each respondent
for which they did not know that their
merchandise was destined for the
United States, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of
this clarification, see Antidumping and
3 In these preliminary results, the Department
applied the assessment rate calculation method
adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation
of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101
(February 14, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
We intend to issue instructions to
CBP 15 days after publication of the
final results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results
of administrative review for all
shipments of subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication of the final results of this
administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rate for Deacero and AMLT will
be equal to the weighted-average
dumping margins established in the
final results of this administrative
review; (2) for merchandise exported by
manufacturers or exporters not covered
in this administrative review but
covered in a prior completed segment of
the proceeding, the cash deposit rate
will continue to be the companyspecific rate published in the completed
segment for the most recent period; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in
this review, a prior review, or the
original investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established in the
completed segment for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit
rate for all other manufacturers or
exporters will continue to be 20.11
percent, the all-others rate established
in the investigation.4 These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Concerning Deacero, on October 1,
2012, the Department found that wire
rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm
to 5.00 mm produced (hereinafter
referred to as narrow gauge wire rod) in
Mexico and exported to the United
States by Deacero was circumventing
the Wire Rod Order.5 Specifically, the
Department found that it is appropriate
to consider that Deacero’s shipments to
the United States of narrow gauge wire
rod constitute merchandise altered in
form or appearance in such minor
respects that it should be included
within the scope of Wire Rod Order.6
4 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod From Mexico, 67 FR 55800 (August
30, 2002).
5 See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod
From Mexico: Affirmative Final Determination of
Circumvention of the Antidumping Order, 77 FR
59892 (October 1, 2012) (Final Circumvention
Determination) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
6 Id.
E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
10NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Department’s affirmative finding in
the Final Circumvention Determination
applied solely to Deacero.
Deacero challenged the Department’s
ruling in the Final Circumvention
Determination and on December 22,
2014, the Court of International Trade
(CIT) entered its final judgement in
Deacero III,7 sustaining the
Department’s negative circumvention
determination from the First Remand
Redetermination in which the
Department, under protest, found that
Deacero’s shipments of narrow gauge
wire rod to the United States were not
subject antidumping duties.8 The
Department is appealing the CIT’s
decision at the Federal Circuit.
Consistent with the CIT’s holding and
Wire Rod Timken Notice,9 the
Department instructed CBP to set the
cash deposit rate for narrow gauge wire
rod shipped to the United States by
Deacero to zero, pending a final and
conclusive court decision. Additionally,
we instructed CBP to refund any
antidumping duties deposited for
narrow gauge wire rod shipped to the
United States by Deacero that entered
from January 1, 2015, through the
publication date of the Wire Rod
Timken Notice (July 27, 2015) and, for
such entries, to continue to suspend
Deacero’s narrow gauge wire rod at a
zero cash deposit rate.10
During the POR of the instant review,
Deacero shipped narrow gauge wire rod
as well as wire rod with actual
diameters greater than 5.00 mm. In light
of the CIT’s holding in Deacero III and
our statement in Wire Rod Timken
Notice that Deacero’s narrow gauge wire
rod is excluded from antidumping
duties,11 we have, for purposes of these
preliminary results, removed narrow
gauge wire rod from Deacero’s dumping
calculations. Per the Court’s holding in
Deacero III, the preliminary cash
deposit rate for Deacero, as listed above,
only applies with regard its entries of
wire with an actual diameter that is
7 See Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and Deacero Usa,
Inc. v. United States and Arcelormittal USA LLC,
Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Evraz Rocky Mountain
Steel, and Nucor Corporation, Court No. 12–00345,
Slip Op. 14–151 (Deacero III).
8 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Deacero S.A. de C.V. and Deacero USA Inc. v.
United States and Arcelormittal USA LLC, Gerdau
Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel,
and Nucor Corporation, Court No. 12–00345; Slip
Op. 13–126 (CIT 2013) (January 29, 2014) (First
Remand Redetermination).
9 See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod
From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With Final Results and Notice of
Amended Final Determination, 80 FR 44326, 44327
(July 27, 2015) (Wire Rod Timken Notice).
10 Id.
11 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Nov 09, 2015
Jkt 238001
greater than 5.00 and less than or equal
to 19.00 mm. The cash deposit rate
listed above for Deacero does not apply
to its entries of narrow gauge wire rod.
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department intends to disclose to
interested parties to this proceeding the
calculations performed in connection
with these preliminary results within
five days after the date of publication of
this notice.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may
submit case briefs not later than 30 days
after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed
not later than five days after the date for
filing case briefs.13 Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
the argument: (1) A statement of the
issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument, and (3) a table of
authorities.14 All case and rebuttal briefs
must be filed electronically using
ACCESS, and must also be served on
interested parties.15 An electronically
filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the
Department’s electronic records system,
ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Executive
summaries should be limited to five
pages total, including footnotes.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c),
interested parties who wish to request a
hearing must submit a written request to
the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce. All documents must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically-filed request must be
received successfully in its entirety by
ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time,
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice.16 Requests
should contain the party’s name,
address, and telephone number, the
number of participants, and a list of the
issues to be discussed. If a request for
a hearing is made, the Department
intends to hold the hearing at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
date to be determined. Parties should
confirm by telephone the date, time, and
location of the hearing two days before
the scheduled date.
Unless the deadline is extended, the
Department intends to issue the final
12 See
19 CFR 351.224(b).
19 CFR 351.309(d).
14 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
15 See 19 CFR 351.303(f).
16 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
13 See
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69643
results of this administrative review,
including the results of our analysis of
the issues raised by the parties in their
case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days
after the publication of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h).
Notification to Importers
This notice also 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 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.
These preliminary results of review
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: October 30, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in
the Preliminary Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Discussion of Methodology
A. Universe of Sales
B. Date of Sale
C. Comparisons to Normal Value
D. Product Comparisons
E. Determination of Comparison Method
F. Results of DP Analysis
G. U.S. Price
H. Normal Value
I. Cost of Production Analysis
J. Affiliated Respondents
K. Currency Conversion
V. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2015–28623 Filed 11–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–024]
Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate
Resin From the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Correction to
Preliminary Affirmative Less Than Fair
Value Determination
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Bezirganian, Office VI, AD/CVD
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
10NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 217 (Tuesday, November 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69641-69643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28623]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-830]
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and
certain alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Mexico. The period of
review (POR) is October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.\1\ This
review covers two producers/exporters of subject merchandise:
ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT) and Deacero S.A. de C.V.
We preliminarily determine that AMLT and Deacero made sales of subject
merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova,
Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002)
(Wire Rod Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective date: November 10, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra (for Deacero) or
Jolanta Lawska (for AMLT), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement
and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: 202-482-3965 and 202-482-8362, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the Wire Rod Order is carbon and certain
alloy steel wire rod. The product is currently classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers
7213.91.3000, 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011,
[[Page 69642]]
7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3091, 7213.91.3092,
7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6000,
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038,
7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0030,
7227.20.0080, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020,
7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6050, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053,
7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, 7227.90.6080, and 7227.90.6085 of the
HTSUS. Although the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written product description remains
dispositive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For a complete description of the scope of the order, see
Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ``Decision
Memorandum for Preliminary Results of 2013/14 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Mexico'' (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with
these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed
export prices or export price are calculated in accordance with section
772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section
773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our
conclusions, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the topics discussed in the
Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this
notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is
on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and
it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Internet at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the
electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer/exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deacero S.A. de C.V..................................... 72.95
ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V.................. 12.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rate
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine,
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For any
individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin
is above de minimis, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem
duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping
calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value
of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).\3\ We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis
(i.e., 0.50 percent). Where either the respondent's weighted-average
dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific
assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
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 this review where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the Department's ``automatic assessment''
practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by
each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was
destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate
unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6,
2003).
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of
the final results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for
all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final
results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Deacero and AMLT will be
equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final
results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by
manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review
but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in
the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to
be 20.11 percent, the all-others rate established in the
investigation.\4\ These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico, 67 FR
55800 (August 30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning Deacero, on October 1, 2012, the Department found that
wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm produced
(hereinafter referred to as narrow gauge wire rod) in Mexico and
exported to the United States by Deacero was circumventing the Wire Rod
Order.\5\ Specifically, the Department found that it is appropriate to
consider that Deacero's shipments to the United States of narrow gauge
wire rod constitute merchandise altered in form or appearance in such
minor respects that it should be included within the scope of Wire Rod
Order.\6\
[[Page 69643]]
The Department's affirmative finding in the Final Circumvention
Determination applied solely to Deacero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico:
Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping
Order, 77 FR 59892 (October 1, 2012) (Final Circumvention
Determination) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deacero challenged the Department's ruling in the Final
Circumvention Determination and on December 22, 2014, the Court of
International Trade (CIT) entered its final judgement in Deacero
III,\7\ sustaining the Department's negative circumvention
determination from the First Remand Redetermination in which the
Department, under protest, found that Deacero's shipments of narrow
gauge wire rod to the United States were not subject antidumping
duties.\8\ The Department is appealing the CIT's decision at the
Federal Circuit. Consistent with the CIT's holding and Wire Rod Timken
Notice,\9\ the Department instructed CBP to set the cash deposit rate
for narrow gauge wire rod shipped to the United States by Deacero to
zero, pending a final and conclusive court decision. Additionally, we
instructed CBP to refund any antidumping duties deposited for narrow
gauge wire rod shipped to the United States by Deacero that entered
from January 1, 2015, through the publication date of the Wire Rod
Timken Notice (July 27, 2015) and, for such entries, to continue to
suspend Deacero's narrow gauge wire rod at a zero cash deposit
rate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and Deacero Usa, Inc. v. United
States and Arcelormittal USA LLC, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Evraz
Rocky Mountain Steel, and Nucor Corporation, Court No. 12-00345,
Slip Op. 14-151 (Deacero III).
\8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Deacero
S.A. de C.V. and Deacero USA Inc. v. United States and Arcelormittal
USA LLC, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel,
and Nucor Corporation, Court No. 12-00345; Slip Op. 13-126 (CIT
2013) (January 29, 2014) (First Remand Redetermination).
\9\ See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and
Notice of Amended Final Determination, 80 FR 44326, 44327 (July 27,
2015) (Wire Rod Timken Notice).
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the POR of the instant review, Deacero shipped narrow gauge
wire rod as well as wire rod with actual diameters greater than 5.00
mm. In light of the CIT's holding in Deacero III and our statement in
Wire Rod Timken Notice that Deacero's narrow gauge wire rod is excluded
from antidumping duties,\11\ we have, for purposes of these preliminary
results, removed narrow gauge wire rod from Deacero's dumping
calculations. Per the Court's holding in Deacero III, the preliminary
cash deposit rate for Deacero, as listed above, only applies with
regard its entries of wire with an actual diameter that is greater than
5.00 and less than or equal to 19.00 mm. The cash deposit rate listed
above for Deacero does not apply to its entries of narrow gauge wire
rod.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties to this
proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these
preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of
this notice.\12\ Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested
parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the
date for filing case briefs.\13\ Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with the
argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument, and (3) a table of authorities.\14\ All case and rebuttal
briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS, and must also be
served on interested parties.\15\ An electronically filed document must
be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic
records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after
the date of publication of this notice. Executive summaries should be
limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
\13\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\14\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
\15\ See 19 CFR 351.303(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to
request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.
All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its
entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice.\16\ Requests should contain the
party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of
participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request
for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at
the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing
two days before the scheduled date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless the deadline is extended, the Department intends to issue
the final results of this administrative review, including the results
of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case and
rebuttal briefs, within 120 days after the publication of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213(h).
Notification to Importers
This notice also 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 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.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 30, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix--List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision
Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Discussion of Methodology
A. Universe of Sales
B. Date of Sale
C. Comparisons to Normal Value
D. Product Comparisons
E. Determination of Comparison Method
F. Results of DP Analysis
G. U.S. Price
H. Normal Value
I. Cost of Production Analysis
J. Affiliated Respondents
K. Currency Conversion
V. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2015-28623 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
