Antidumping Duty Investigations of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 76444-76447 [2015-31083]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
76444
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices
the Calexico U.S. Customs and Border
Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority
to reorganize its existing zone to include
existing Sites 1 through 5 and 7 through
14 as ‘‘magnet’’ sites and existing Sites
6, 15 and 16 as ‘‘usage-driven’’ sites.
The ASF allows for the possible
exemption of one magnet site from the
‘‘sunset’’ time limits that generally
apply to sites under the ASF, and the
applicant proposes that Site 1 be so
exempted. No new subzones/usagedriven sites are being requested at this
time.
In accordance with the FTZ Board’s
regulations, Christopher Kemp of the
FTZ Staff is designated examiner to
evaluate and analyze the facts and
information presented in the application
and case record and to report findings
and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions shall be
addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive
Secretary at the address below. The
closing period for their receipt is
February 8, 2016. Rebuttal comments in
response to material submitted during
the foregoing period may be submitted
during the subsequent 15-day period to
February 22, 2016.
A copy of the application will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room
21013, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the
‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the FTZ
Board’s Web site, which is accessible
via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further
information, contact Christopher Kemp
at Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov or (202)
482–0862.
Dated: December 3, 2015.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–31079 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
International Trade Administration
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
[A–602–809, A–351–845, A–588–874, A–421–
482–0665, and (202) 482–1690,
813, C–351–846]
respectively.
Antidumping Duty Investigations of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products
Background
From Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2), the
Netherlands and Countervailing Duty
petitioners requested that the
Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled
Department issue a preliminary
Steel Flat Products From Brazil:
affirmative determination of critical
Preliminary Determinations of Critical
circumstances on an expedited basis. In
Circumstances
accordance with sections 703(e)(1) and
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
733(e)(1) of the Act, because the
International Trade Administration,
petitioners submitted their critical
Department of Commerce.
circumstances allegations more than 20
days before the scheduled date of the
SUMMARY: On August 11, 2015, the
final determination, the Department
Department of Commerce (the
Department) received antidumping duty must promptly issue preliminary critical
circumstances determinations.
(AD) petitions concerning imports of
Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides
certain hot-rolled steel flat products
that the Department will determine that
(hot-rolled steel) from Australia, Brazil,
critical circumstances exist in CVD
Japan, and the Netherlands, and a
investigations if there is a reasonable
countervailing duty (CVD) petition
concerning hot-rolled steel from Brazil.1 basis to believe or suspect: (A) That ‘‘the
alleged countervailable subsidy’’ is
On October 23, 2015, the Department
inconsistent with the Agreement on
received timely allegations, pursuant to
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), (SCM Agreement) of the World Trade
Organization, and (B) that ‘‘there have
and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical
been massive imports of the subject
circumstances exist with respect to
merchandise over a relatively short
imports of the merchandise under
period.’’ Section 733(e)(1) of the Act
investigation.2 Based on information
provided by the petitioners, data placed provides that the Department will
preliminarily determine that critical
on the record of these investigations by
circumstances exist in AD investigations
the mandatory respondents, and data
collected by the Department from Global if there is a reasonable basis to believe
or suspect: (A)(i) That ‘‘there is a history
Trade Atlas (GTA), the Department
of dumping and material injury by
preliminarily determines that critical
reason of dumped imports in the United
circumstances exist for imports of hotStates or elsewhere of the subject
rolled steel from certain producers and
merchandise,’’ or (ii) that ‘‘the person by
exporters from Brazil and Japan.
whom, or for whose account, the
DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2015.
merchandise was imported knew or
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
should have known that the exporter
Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten,
was selling the subject merchandise at
AD/CVD Operations, Office I,
less than its fair value and that there
Enforcement and Compliance,
was likely to be material injury by
reason of such sales,’’ and (B) that
1 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
‘‘there have been massive imports of the
Duties on Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
subject merchandise over a relatively
Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the
Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom,
short period.’’ Section 351.206(h)(2) of
dated August 11, 2015, and Petitions for the
the Department’s regulations provides
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
that, generally, imports must increase by
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil,
at least 15 percent during the ‘‘relatively
Korea, and Turkey, dated August 11, 2015
(collectively, the petitions). The petitioners for
short period’’ to be considered
these investigations are AK Steel Corporation,
‘‘massive’’ and section 351.206(i)
ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation, SSAB
defines a ‘‘relatively short period’’ as
Enterprises, LLC, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and United
normally being the period beginning on
States Steel Corporation (the petitioners).
2 See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From
the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the
Australia, Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands—
date the petition is filed) 3 and ending at
Critical Circumstances Allegations, October 23,
least three months later.4 The
2105, and Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
From Australia, Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands—
Critical Circumstances Allegations, November 2,
2015 (making public certain information in
Attachment 2 of original submission) (collectively,
Critical Circumstances Allegation).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:38 Dec 08, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(40) (providing that a
proceeding begins on the date of the filing of a
petition).
4 See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices
regulations also provide, however, that,
if the Department ‘‘finds that importers,
or exporters or producers, had reason to
believe, at some time prior to the
beginning of the proceeding, that a
proceeding was likely,’’ the Department
‘‘may consider a period of not less than
three months from that earlier time.’’ 5
Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are
Inconsistent With the SCM Agreement
To determine whether an alleged
countervailable subsidy is inconsistent
with the SCM Agreement, in accordance
with section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the
Department considered the evidence
currently on the record of the Brazil
CVD investigation. Specifically, as
determined in our initiation checklist,
the following subsidy programs, alleged
in the petition and supported by
information reasonably available to the
petitioners, appear to be either export
contingent or contingent upon the use of
domestic goods over imported goods,
which would render them inconsistent
with the SCM Agreement: Reduction of
Tax on Industrialized Products (IPI) for
Machines and Equipment,6 Brazil’s
Export Financing Program (PROEX),7
Reintegra Program,8 RECAP: Special
Regime for the Acquisition of Capital
Goods for Export Companies,9
Integrated Drawback Scheme,10 Export
Credit Insurance and Guarantees,11
Export Guarantee Fund,12 Export
Promotion and Marketing Assistance,13
Banco do Brasil and Banco Nacional de
ˆ
Desenvolvimento Economico e Social
(BNDES) ExIm loans,14 FINAME
loans,15 and Automatic BNDES.16
Therefore, the Department
preliminarily determines for purposes of
this critical circumstances
determination that there are alleged
subsidies in the Brazil CVD
investigation that are inconsistent with
the SCM Agreement.
History of Dumping and Material
Injury/Knowledge of Sales Below Fair
Value and Material Injury
In order to determine whether there is
a history of dumping pursuant to
section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the
Department generally considers current
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5 Id.
6 See Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, August 31,
2015, at 7.
7 Id., at 12.
8 Id.
9 Id., at 13.
10 Id., at 14.
11 Id., at 15.
12 Id., at 16.
13 Id., at 17.
14 Id., at 34.
15 Id., at 35.
16 Id., at 38.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Dec 08, 2015
Jkt 238001
or previous AD orders on subject
merchandise from the country in
question in the United States and
current orders imposed by other
countries with regard to imports of the
same merchandise.17 The Department
has previously issued AD orders on hotrolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel
products from Japan 18 and Brazil.19
Moreover, there are current AD orders
imposed by other World Trade
Organization members against hotrolled steel products from Brazil and
Japan.20 Certain HTS numbers subject to
these Brazil and Japan orders overlap
with HTS numbers listed in the scope
of these hot-rolled steel investigations.
Therefore, there is evidence of a history
of dumping of subject merchandise
exported from Brazil and Japan.
To determine whether importers
knew or should have known that
exporters were selling at less than fair
value, we typically consider the
magnitude of dumping margins,
including margins alleged in petitions.21
The Department has found margins of
15 to 25 percent (depending on whether
sales are export price sales or
constructed export price sales) to be
sufficient for this purpose.22 The
17 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From
the People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination
of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of
Final Determination, 74 FR 59117, 59120
(November 17, 2009) unchanged in Certain Oil
Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Final Determination of
Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of
Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010).
18 See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products
From Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 1999).
19 See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products
from Brazil, 67 FR 11093 (March 12, 2002).
20 See Attachment 1 of Critical Circumstances
Allegation (containing ‘‘Semi-Annual Report Under
Article 16.4 of the Agreement’’ from Australia to
World Trade Organization depicting ‘‘Definitive
Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December
31, 2014’’ which lists Hot Rolled Steel Coil from,
Japan, et.al.; Semi-Annual Report Under Article
16.4 of the Agreement’’ from Canada to World
Trade Organization depicting ‘‘Definitive AntiDumping Measures in Force, as of December 31,
2014’’ which lists Certain Flat Hot-Rolled Carbon
and Alloy Steel Sheet and Strip from Brazil, et.al.;
and ‘‘Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the
Agreement’’ from Thailand to World Trade
Organization depicting ‘‘Definitive Anti-Dumping
Measures in Force, as of December 31, 2014’’ which
lists Flat Hot Rolled Steel in Coils and not in Coils
from Japan, et.al.).
21 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determinations
of Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, the
People’s Republic of China, India, the Republic of
Korea, the Netherlands, and the Russian
Federation, 67 FR 19157, 19158 (April 18, 2002)
(unchanged in the final determination).
22 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76445
Department initiated these AD
investigations based on the following
estimated dumping margins: 99.20
percent (Australia); 34.28 percent
(Brazil); 16.15 to 34.53 percent (Japan);
and 55.21 to 173.17 percent
(Netherlands). All of these margins are
above the 15 to 25 percent threshold.23
Therefore, on that basis, we
preliminarily conclude that importers
knew or should have known that
exporters in all four countries were
selling subject merchandise at less than
fair value.
To determine whether importers
knew or should have known that there
was likely to be material injury, we
typically consider the preliminary
injury determinations of the
International Trade Commission (ITC).24
If the ITC finds material injury (rather
than the threat of injury), we normally
find that the ITC’s determination
provided importers with sufficient
knowledge of injury. In these
investigations, the ITC’s finding of
material injury by reason of imports of
hot-rolled steel from, inter alia,
Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the
Netherlands is sufficient to impute
knowledge of the likelihood of material
injury for each of these countries.25
Massive Imports
In determining whether there have
been ‘‘massive imports’’ over a
‘‘relatively short period,’’ pursuant to
sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 733(e)(1)(B) of
the Act, the Department normally
compares the import volumes of the
subject merchandise for at least three
months immediately preceding the
filing of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘base
Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, 62
FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997) (unchanged in the
final determination) and Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672 (July 16, 2004) (unchanged
in the final determination).
23 See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from
Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the
Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the
United Kingdom: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigations, 80 FR 54261, 54265 (September 9,
2015).
24 See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts
from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances
in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain
Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical
Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377 (June 1, 2010).
25 See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from
Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands,
Turkey, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701–
TA–545–547 and 731–TA–1291–1297 (Prelim),
USITC Pub. 4570 (Oct. 2015) at 1.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
76446
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices
period’’) to a comparable period of at
least three months following the filing
of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘comparison
period’’). Imports normally will be
considered massive when imports
during the comparison period have
increased by 15 percent or more
compared to imports during the base
period.
Based on evidence provided by the
petitioners, the Department finds that
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i),
importers, exporters or producers had
reason to believe, at some time prior to
the filing of the petition, that a
proceeding was likely. Specifically, the
Department concludes that the available
factual information provided by the
petitioners indicates that by June 2015,
importers, exporters or producers had
reason to believe that a proceeding was
likely. The Department finds the
following information relevant from the
press articles the petitioners provided to
support their claim of ‘‘early
knowledge’’:
• On May 11, 2015, American Metal
Market issued an article acknowledging
an industry analyst at Morgan Stanley
Equity Research indicating that ‘‘flatrolled steel trade cases could move
forward soon due to congressional
bickering surrounding Trade Promotion
Authority (TPA).’’ 26 That article
included statements about the past and
current state of hot-rolled coil prices,
thereby indicating that the potential
trade cases included hot-rolled steel.27
• On May 29, 2015, another industry
source, Steel Business Briefer, indicated
that an informant of a service center
executive stated that he was 90 percent
sure that a filing on flat-rolled products
will take place next week (i.e., in June).
According to the informant, ‘‘US sheet
mills are waiting . . . to finish data
collection . . . and that {one} mill has
already contacted him to gather
information. {US mills are} having
trouble with their customers finding out
how much import they’re buying.’’ 28
The article also included assessments
on hot-rolled and cold-rolled coil prices,
thereby demonstrating that the potential
trade cases concerned both hot-rolled
and cold-rolled products.29
• On June 4, 2015, a day after trade
cases were filed on corrosion-resistant
steel products, American Metal Market
issued an article stating that this case
was the ‘‘first of many expected across
U.S. steel markets in the coming weeks
and months.’’ Additionally, an industry
26 See Critical Circumstances Allegation at
Attachment 2.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Dec 08, 2015
Jkt 238001
analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity
Research was quoted as saying that he
believed that ‘‘the {U.S} industry is also
working on cold-rolled and potentially
hot-rolled cases as well.’’ 30
• On June 9, 2015, American Metal
Market issued an article providing
commentary from the chairman,
president, and chief executive officer
(CEO) of AK Steel Corporation (one of
the petitioning companies in this
investigation), confirming that the trade
cases on hot-rolled and cold-rolled coil
were likely to come shortly after the
already-filed trade case on corrosionresistant steel. In particular, the author
indicated that, according to the CEO,
‘‘{d}omestic steelmakers are considering
trade petitions against imports of hotrolled and cold-rolled coil.’’ Further, the
CEO was quoted as saying, ‘‘All aspects
of the carbon product are being
analyzed. Whether (hot-rolled coil) is
the next case or the third case, all three
are being looked at and one has been
filed. . . The others are being evaluated
. . . At this point, we look to our
advisors and our lawyers to give us the
go-ahead. . .’’ 31
The above references, by industry
specialists and authorities, to the
impending trade cases on hot-rolled
steel indicate that steel importers,
exporters, and producers had, by the
end of June 2015, sufficiently credible
reasons to believe that forthcoming
petitions were likely.32
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 In its November 3, 2015, submission, a
Japanese producer, Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal
Corporation, commented that the Department has
previously rejected the mere presence of rumors in
press articles as being too speculative to form a
basis for imputing knowledge that a petition was
likely. Similarly, in its November 13, 2015,
comments, a Dutch producer, Tata Steel IJmuiden
B.V., commented that none of the articles the
petitioners cited rise to anything above speculation,
claiming that the strongest characterization of the
articles that could be made concerning hot-rolled
steel is that the U.S. industry was looking into
whether a case could be brought, not that a case
would be initiated and that such an initiation was
imminent. In its November 2, 2015, submission, an
Australian producer/exporter, BlueScope Steel Ltd.
(BlueScope) asserted that ‘‘the existence of one or
two uncorroborated rumors reported in the press
articles in June 2015, hardly constitutes a ‘reason
to believe’ that a case against hot-rolled steel . . .
was ‘likely,’ as required by the regulations.’’ On the
basis of the information in various industry articles
it submitted, BlueScope notes that, in many months
leading up to the filing of a case against imports of
coated steel in June 2015, a case against imports of
hot-rolled steel had not been mentioned since the
time it was first rumored in July 2014; and cases
against imports of cold-rolled and coated steel had
been repeatedly rumored but not filed. BlueScope
argues that, given the repeated unreliability of
rumors in the past, importers would have been
understandably skeptical of any reports emerging in
June 2015 of a case against imports of hot-rolled
steel. We do not find interested parties’ arguments
persuasive. The records of these investigations
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Thus, in order to determine whether
there has been a massive surge in
imports for each cooperating mandatory
respondent, the Department compared
the total volume of shipments during
the period June 2015 through October
2015 (all months for which data was
available) with the volume of shipments
during the preceding five-month period
of January 2015 through May 2015. For
‘‘all others,’’ the Department compared
GTA data for the period June 2015
through September 2015 (the last month
for which GTA data is currently
available) with data for the preceding
four-month period of February 2014
through May 2015.33 We subtracted
shipments reported by the mandatory
respondents from the GTA data. With
respect to Australia and the
Netherlands, the shipment data do not
demonstrate massive surges in imports
for any producers/exporters. Therefore,
we are reaching a preliminary negative
critical circumstances determination
with respect to Australia and the
Netherlands. With respect to Brazil and
Japan, we preliminarily determine the
following producers/exporters had
massive surges in imports.34
• Brazil (A–351–845 and C–351–846):
Companhia Siderugica Nacional (CSN),
Usinas Siderurgicas da Minas Gerais
S.A. (Usiminas);
show that rumors on trade cases against imports of
corrosion-resistant, cold-rolled, and hot-rolled
steels cases had been circulating as far back as 2014.
The records also show that these three cases were
often referenced collectively, or were simply
referred to as ‘‘flat rolled’’ cases. When trade cases
were actually filed on imports of corrosion-resistant
steel in early June 2015, we find that this solidified
rumors into the expectation among steel importers,
exporters, and producers that forthcoming petitions
on the remaining products (i.e., cold-rolled and hotrolled steels) were inevitable. This is corroborated
by the statements from the CEO of AK Steel
Corporation in the June 9, 2015, article by American
Metal Market, which illuminated the imminence of
trade cases on imports of cold-rolled and hot-rolled
steel, stating that the requisite data were ‘‘available’’
and that other cases are ‘‘going to follow’’ pending
legal approval.
33 The Department gathered GTA data under the
following harmonized tariff schedule numbers:
7208.10.1500, 7208.10.3000, 7208.10.6000,
7208.25.3000, 7208.25.6000, 7208.26.0030,
7208.26.0060, 7208.27.0030, 7208.27.0060,
7208.36.0030, 7208.36.0060, 7208.37.0030,
7208.37.0060, 7208.38.0015, 7208.38.0030,
7208.38.0090, 7208.39.0015, 7208.39.0030,
7208.39.0090, 7208.40.6030, 7208.40.6060,
7208.53.0000, 7208.54.0000, 7208.90.0000,
7210.70.3000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0090,
7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.3000,
7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7530,
7211.19.7560, 7211.19.7590, 7225.11.0000,
7225.19.0000, 7225.30.3050, 7225.30.7000,
7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000,
7226.11.9030, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000,
7226.19.9000, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, and
7226.91.8000.
34 See respective preliminary critical
circumstances memoranda for each proceeding,
dated concurrently with this notice.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices
• Japan (A–588–874): Nippon Steel &
Sumikin Bussan Corporation (Nippon),
JFE Steel Corporation (JFE);
Conclusion
Based on the criteria and findings
discussed above, we preliminarily
determine that critical circumstances
76447
exist with respect to imports of hotrolled steel shipped by certain
producers/exporters. Our findings are
summarized as follows.
Country
Case No.
Affirmative preliminary critical
circumstances determinations
Negative preliminary critical
circumstances determinations
Australia .........................................
A–602–809 ...................................
None .............................................
Brazil ..............................................
A–351–845
C–351–846
A–588–874
A–421–813
CSN; Usiminas .............................
BlueScope; all other producers/
exporters.
All other producers/exporters.
Japan .............................................
Netherlands ....................................
Final Critical Circumstances
Determinations
We will issue final determinations
concerning critical circumstances when
we issue our final countervailing duty
and less than fair value determinations.
All interested parties will have the
opportunity to address these
determinations in case briefs to be
submitted after completion of the
preliminary countervailing duty and
less than fair value determinations.
ITC Notification
In accordance with sections 703(f)
and 733(f) of the Act, we have notified
the ITC of our determinations.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(e)(2)
of the Act, because we have
preliminarily found that critical
circumstances exist with regard to
exports made by certain producers and/
or exporters, if we make an affirmative
preliminary determination that
countervailable subsidies have been
provided to these same producers/
exporters at above de minimis rates,35
we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to suspend
liquidation of all entries of subject
merchandise from these producers/
exporters that are entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date that is 90 days prior to the
effective date of ‘‘provisional measures’’
(e.g., the date of publication in the
Federal Register of the notice of an
affirmative preliminary determination
that countervailable subsidies have been
provided at above de minimis rates). At
such time, we will also instruct CBP to
require a cash deposit equal to the
estimated preliminary subsidy rates
reflected in the preliminary
determination published in the Federal
35 The preliminary determination in the
countervailing duty investigation for Brazil is
currently scheduled for January 8, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Dec 08, 2015
Jkt 238001
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
Nippon; JFE ..................................
None .............................................
Register. This suspension of liquidation
will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 733(e)(2)
of the Act, because we have
preliminarily found that critical
circumstances exist with regard to
exports made by certain producers and/
or exporters, if we make an affirmative
preliminary determination that sales at
less than fair value have been made by
these same producers/exporters at above
de minimis rates,36 we will instruct CBP
to suspend liquidation of all entries of
subject merchandise from these
producers/exporters that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date that is
90 days prior to the effective date of
‘‘provisional measures’’ (e.g., the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
the notice of an affirmative preliminary
determination of sales at less than fair
value at above de minimis rates). At
such time, we will also instruct CBP to
require a cash deposit equal to the
estimated preliminary dumping margins
reflected in the preliminary
determination published in the Federal
Register. This suspension of liquidation
will remain in effect until further notice.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).
Dated: December 2, 2015.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015–31083 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
36 The preliminary determinations concerning
sales at less than fair value are due on March 8,
2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
All other producers/exporters.
Tata; all other producers/exporters.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–837; A–570–954]
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From
Mexico and the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Expedited
Sunset Review of the Antidumping
Duty Orders
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 3, 2015, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) initiated the first fiveyear (‘‘sunset’’) review of the
antidumping duty orders on certain
magnesia carbon bricks (‘‘MCBs’’) from
Mexico and the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ‘‘Act’’).1 On the basis of
a notice of intent to participate and an
adequate substantive response, filed on
behalf of the domestic interested parties,
as well as a lack of response from
respondent interested parties, the
Department conducted an expedited
sunset review of the antidumping duty
orders, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B)
of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this
sunset review, the Department finds that
revocation of the Orders would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping at the levels indicated in the
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this
notice.
DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth Hawkins, Enforcement and
Compliance, Office V, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
AGENCY:
1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 80
FR 45945 (August 3, 2015) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’); see
also Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico and the
People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Orders,
75 FR 57257 (September 20, 2010) (‘‘Orders’’).
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76444-76447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31083]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-602-809, A-351-845, A-588-874, A-421-813, C-351-846]
Antidumping Duty Investigations of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands and
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products From Brazil: Preliminary Determinations of Critical
Circumstances
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 11, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports
of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from
Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands, and a countervailing
duty (CVD) petition concerning hot-rolled steel from Brazil.\1\ On
October 23, 2015, the Department received timely allegations, pursuant
to sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical circumstances
exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under
investigation.\2\ Based on information provided by the petitioners,
data placed on the record of these investigations by the mandatory
respondents, and data collected by the Department from Global Trade
Atlas (GTA), the Department preliminarily determines that critical
circumstances exist for imports of hot-rolled steel from certain
producers and exporters from Brazil and Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia,
Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United
Kingdom, dated August 11, 2015, and Petitions for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products from Brazil, Korea, and Turkey, dated August 11, 2015
(collectively, the petitions). The petitioners for these
investigations are AK Steel Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA LLC,
Nucor Corporation, SSAB Enterprises, LLC, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and
United States Steel Corporation (the petitioners).
\2\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Australia,
Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands--Critical Circumstances
Allegations, October 23, 2105, and Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands--Critical
Circumstances Allegations, November 2, 2015 (making public certain
information in Attachment 2 of original submission) (collectively,
Critical Circumstances Allegation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0665, and (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2), the petitioners requested that
the Department issue a preliminary affirmative determination of
critical circumstances on an expedited basis. In accordance with
sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Act, because the petitioners
submitted their critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days
before the scheduled date of the final determination, the Department
must promptly issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations.
Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will
determine that critical circumstances exist in CVD investigations if
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A) That ``the
alleged countervailable subsidy'' is inconsistent with the Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) of the World
Trade Organization, and (B) that ``there have been massive imports of
the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.'' Section
733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily
determine that critical circumstances exist in AD investigations if
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A)(i) That ``there
is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports
in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise,'' or (ii)
that ``the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the
subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales,'' and (B) that
``there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a
relatively short period.'' Section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's
regulations provides that, generally, imports must increase by at least
15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' to be considered
``massive'' and section 351.206(i) defines a ``relatively short
period'' as normally being the period beginning on the date the
proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) \3\ and ending
at least three months later.\4\ The
[[Page 76445]]
regulations also provide, however, that, if the Department ``finds that
importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some
time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was
likely,'' the Department ``may consider a period of not less than three
months from that earlier time.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(40) (providing that a proceeding
begins on the date of the filing of a petition).
\4\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are Inconsistent With the SCM
Agreement
To determine whether an alleged countervailable subsidy is
inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section
703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department considered the evidence
currently on the record of the Brazil CVD investigation. Specifically,
as determined in our initiation checklist, the following subsidy
programs, alleged in the petition and supported by information
reasonably available to the petitioners, appear to be either export
contingent or contingent upon the use of domestic goods over imported
goods, which would render them inconsistent with the SCM Agreement:
Reduction of Tax on Industrialized Products (IPI) for Machines and
Equipment,\6\ Brazil's Export Financing Program (PROEX),\7\ Reintegra
Program,\8\ RECAP: Special Regime for the Acquisition of Capital Goods
for Export Companies,\9\ Integrated Drawback Scheme,\10\ Export Credit
Insurance and Guarantees,\11\ Export Guarantee Fund,\12\ Export
Promotion and Marketing Assistance,\13\ Banco do Brasil and Banco
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econ[ocirc]mico e Social (BNDES) ExIm
loans,\14\ FINAME loans,\15\ and Automatic BNDES.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, August 31, 2015, at 7.
\7\ Id., at 12.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id., at 13.
\10\ Id., at 14.
\11\ Id., at 15.
\12\ Id., at 16.
\13\ Id., at 17.
\14\ Id., at 34.
\15\ Id., at 35.
\16\ Id., at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines for purposes of
this critical circumstances determination that there are alleged
subsidies in the Brazil CVD investigation that are inconsistent with
the SCM Agreement.
History of Dumping and Material Injury/Knowledge of Sales Below Fair
Value and Material Injury
In order to determine whether there is a history of dumping
pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department
generally considers current or previous AD orders on subject
merchandise from the country in question in the United States and
current orders imposed by other countries with regard to imports of the
same merchandise.\17\ The Department has previously issued AD orders on
hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Japan \18\
and Brazil.\19\ Moreover, there are current AD orders imposed by other
World Trade Organization members against hot-rolled steel products from
Brazil and Japan.\20\ Certain HTS numbers subject to these Brazil and
Japan orders overlap with HTS numbers listed in the scope of these hot-
rolled steel investigations. Therefore, there is evidence of a history
of dumping of subject merchandise exported from Brazil and Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination, 74
FR 59117, 59120 (November 17, 2009) unchanged in Certain Oil Country
Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of
Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010).
\18\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled
Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29,
1999).
\19\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled
Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 67 FR 11093 (March 12,
2002).
\20\ See Attachment 1 of Critical Circumstances Allegation
(containing ``Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the
Agreement'' from Australia to World Trade Organization depicting
``Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December 31,
2014'' which lists Hot Rolled Steel Coil from, Japan, et.al.; Semi-
Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement'' from Canada to
World Trade Organization depicting ``Definitive Anti-Dumping
Measures in Force, as of December 31, 2014'' which lists Certain
Flat Hot-Rolled Carbon and Alloy Steel Sheet and Strip from Brazil,
et.al.; and ``Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the
Agreement'' from Thailand to World Trade Organization depicting
``Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December 31,
2014'' which lists Flat Hot Rolled Steel in Coils and not in Coils
from Japan, et.al.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether importers knew or should have known that
exporters were selling at less than fair value, we typically consider
the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in
petitions.\21\ The Department has found margins of 15 to 25 percent
(depending on whether sales are export price sales or constructed
export price sales) to be sufficient for this purpose.\22\ The
Department initiated these AD investigations based on the following
estimated dumping margins: 99.20 percent (Australia); 34.28 percent
(Brazil); 16.15 to 34.53 percent (Japan); and 55.21 to 173.17 percent
(Netherlands). All of these margins are above the 15 to 25 percent
threshold.\23\ Therefore, on that basis, we preliminarily conclude that
importers knew or should have known that exporters in all four
countries were selling subject merchandise at less than fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Australia, the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of
Korea, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation, 67 FR 19157,
19158 (April 18, 2002) (unchanged in the final determination).
\22\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997)
(unchanged in the final determination) and Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672 (July 16, 2004)
(unchanged in the final determination).
\23\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia,
Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic
of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-
Value Investigations, 80 FR 54261, 54265 (September 9, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there
was likely to be material injury, we typically consider the preliminary
injury determinations of the International Trade Commission (ITC).\24\
If the ITC finds material injury (rather than the threat of injury), we
normally find that the ITC's determination provided importers with
sufficient knowledge of injury. In these investigations, the ITC's
finding of material injury by reason of imports of hot-rolled steel
from, inter alia, Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands is
sufficient to impute knowledge of the likelihood of material injury for
each of these countries.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain Potassium Phosphate
Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical
Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377 (June 1, 2010).
\25\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia,
Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United
Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-545-547 and 731-TA-1291-1297 (Prelim),
USITC Pub. 4570 (Oct. 2015) at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive Imports
In determining whether there have been ``massive imports'' over a
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and
733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import
volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months
immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the ``base
[[Page 76446]]
period'') to a comparable period of at least three months following the
filing of the petition (i.e., the ``comparison period''). Imports
normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison
period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during
the base period.
Based on evidence provided by the petitioners, the Department finds
that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), importers, exporters or producers
had reason to believe, at some time prior to the filing of the
petition, that a proceeding was likely. Specifically, the Department
concludes that the available factual information provided by the
petitioners indicates that by June 2015, importers, exporters or
producers had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely. The
Department finds the following information relevant from the press
articles the petitioners provided to support their claim of ``early
knowledge'':
On May 11, 2015, American Metal Market issued an article
acknowledging an industry analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity Research
indicating that ``flat-rolled steel trade cases could move forward soon
due to congressional bickering surrounding Trade Promotion Authority
(TPA).'' \26\ That article included statements about the past and
current state of hot-rolled coil prices, thereby indicating that the
potential trade cases included hot-rolled steel.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation at Attachment 2.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 29, 2015, another industry source, Steel Business
Briefer, indicated that an informant of a service center executive
stated that he was 90 percent sure that a filing on flat-rolled
products will take place next week (i.e., in June). According to the
informant, ``US sheet mills are waiting . . . to finish data collection
. . . and that {one{time} mill has already contacted him to gather
information. {US mills are{time} having trouble with their customers
finding out how much import they're buying.'' \28\ The article also
included assessments on hot-rolled and cold-rolled coil prices, thereby
demonstrating that the potential trade cases concerned both hot-rolled
and cold-rolled products.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 4, 2015, a day after trade cases were filed on
corrosion-resistant steel products, American Metal Market issued an
article stating that this case was the ``first of many expected across
U.S. steel markets in the coming weeks and months.'' Additionally, an
industry analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity Research was quoted as saying
that he believed that ``the {U.S{time} industry is also working on
cold-rolled and potentially hot-rolled cases as well.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2015, American Metal Market issued an article
providing commentary from the chairman, president, and chief executive
officer (CEO) of AK Steel Corporation (one of the petitioning companies
in this investigation), confirming that the trade cases on hot-rolled
and cold-rolled coil were likely to come shortly after the already-
filed trade case on corrosion-resistant steel. In particular, the
author indicated that, according to the CEO, ``{d{time} omestic
steelmakers are considering trade petitions against imports of hot-
rolled and cold-rolled coil.'' Further, the CEO was quoted as saying,
``All aspects of the carbon product are being analyzed. Whether (hot-
rolled coil) is the next case or the third case, all three are being
looked at and one has been filed. . . The others are being evaluated .
. . At this point, we look to our advisors and our lawyers to give us
the go-ahead. . .'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above references, by industry specialists and authorities, to
the impending trade cases on hot-rolled steel indicate that steel
importers, exporters, and producers had, by the end of June 2015,
sufficiently credible reasons to believe that forthcoming petitions
were likely.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ In its November 3, 2015, submission, a Japanese producer,
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, commented that the
Department has previously rejected the mere presence of rumors in
press articles as being too speculative to form a basis for imputing
knowledge that a petition was likely. Similarly, in its November 13,
2015, comments, a Dutch producer, Tata Steel IJmuiden B.V.,
commented that none of the articles the petitioners cited rise to
anything above speculation, claiming that the strongest
characterization of the articles that could be made concerning hot-
rolled steel is that the U.S. industry was looking into whether a
case could be brought, not that a case would be initiated and that
such an initiation was imminent. In its November 2, 2015,
submission, an Australian producer/exporter, BlueScope Steel Ltd.
(BlueScope) asserted that ``the existence of one or two
uncorroborated rumors reported in the press articles in June 2015,
hardly constitutes a `reason to believe' that a case against hot-
rolled steel . . . was `likely,' as required by the regulations.''
On the basis of the information in various industry articles it
submitted, BlueScope notes that, in many months leading up to the
filing of a case against imports of coated steel in June 2015, a
case against imports of hot-rolled steel had not been mentioned
since the time it was first rumored in July 2014; and cases against
imports of cold-rolled and coated steel had been repeatedly rumored
but not filed. BlueScope argues that, given the repeated
unreliability of rumors in the past, importers would have been
understandably skeptical of any reports emerging in June 2015 of a
case against imports of hot-rolled steel. We do not find interested
parties' arguments persuasive. The records of these investigations
show that rumors on trade cases against imports of corrosion-
resistant, cold-rolled, and hot-rolled steels cases had been
circulating as far back as 2014. The records also show that these
three cases were often referenced collectively, or were simply
referred to as ``flat rolled'' cases. When trade cases were actually
filed on imports of corrosion-resistant steel in early June 2015, we
find that this solidified rumors into the expectation among steel
importers, exporters, and producers that forthcoming petitions on
the remaining products (i.e., cold-rolled and hot-rolled steels)
were inevitable. This is corroborated by the statements from the CEO
of AK Steel Corporation in the June 9, 2015, article by American
Metal Market, which illuminated the imminence of trade cases on
imports of cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel, stating that the
requisite data were ``available'' and that other cases are ``going
to follow'' pending legal approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in order to determine whether there has been a massive surge
in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, the Department
compared the total volume of shipments during the period June 2015
through October 2015 (all months for which data was available) with the
volume of shipments during the preceding five-month period of January
2015 through May 2015. For ``all others,'' the Department compared GTA
data for the period June 2015 through September 2015 (the last month
for which GTA data is currently available) with data for the preceding
four-month period of February 2014 through May 2015.\33\ We subtracted
shipments reported by the mandatory respondents from the GTA data. With
respect to Australia and the Netherlands, the shipment data do not
demonstrate massive surges in imports for any producers/exporters.
Therefore, we are reaching a preliminary negative critical
circumstances determination with respect to Australia and the
Netherlands. With respect to Brazil and Japan, we preliminarily
determine the following producers/exporters had massive surges in
imports.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The Department gathered GTA data under the following
harmonized tariff schedule numbers: 7208.10.1500, 7208.10.3000,
7208.10.6000, 7208.25.3000, 7208.25.6000, 7208.26.0030,
7208.26.0060, 7208.27.0030, 7208.27.0060, 7208.36.0030,
7208.36.0060, 7208.37.0030, 7208.37.0060, 7208.38.0015,
7208.38.0030, 7208.38.0090, 7208.39.0015, 7208.39.0030,
7208.39.0090, 7208.40.6030, 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000,
7208.54.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.14.0030,
7211.14.0090, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.3000,
7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7530, 7211.19.7560,
7211.19.7590, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.30.3050,
7225.30.7000, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000,
7226.11.9030, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000,
7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, and 7226.91.8000.
\34\ See respective preliminary critical circumstances memoranda
for each proceeding, dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil (A-351-845 and C-351-846): Companhia Siderugica
Nacional (CSN), Usinas Siderurgicas da Minas Gerais S.A. (Usiminas);
[[Page 76447]]
Japan (A-588-874): Nippon Steel & Sumikin Bussan
Corporation (Nippon), JFE Steel Corporation (JFE);
Conclusion
Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect
to imports of hot-rolled steel shipped by certain producers/exporters.
Our findings are summarized as follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative preliminary Negative preliminary
Country Case No. critical circumstances critical circumstances
determinations determinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia............................ A-602-809.............. None................... BlueScope; all other
producers/exporters.
Brazil............................... A-351-845.............. CSN; Usiminas.......... All other producers/
C-351-846.............. exporters.
Japan................................ A-588-874.............. Nippon; JFE............ All other producers/
exporters.
Netherlands.......................... A-421-813.............. None................... Tata; all other
producers/exporters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Critical Circumstances Determinations
We will issue final determinations concerning critical
circumstances when we issue our final countervailing duty and less than
fair value determinations. All interested parties will have the
opportunity to address these determinations in case briefs to be
submitted after completion of the preliminary countervailing duty and
less than fair value determinations.
ITC Notification
In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we have
notified the ITC of our determinations.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(e)(2) of the Act, because we have
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to
exports made by certain producers and/or exporters, if we make an
affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies
have been provided to these same producers/exporters at above de
minimis rates,\35\ we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from
these producers/exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior
to the effective date of ``provisional measures'' (e.g., the date of
publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative
preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been
provided at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated
preliminary subsidy rates reflected in the preliminary determination
published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The preliminary determination in the countervailing duty
investigation for Brazil is currently scheduled for January 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, because we have
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to
exports made by certain producers and/or exporters, if we make an
affirmative preliminary determination that sales at less than fair
value have been made by these same producers/exporters at above de
minimis rates,\36\ we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all
entries of subject merchandise from these producers/exporters that are
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date that is 90 days prior to the effective date of ``provisional
measures'' (e.g., the date of publication in the Federal Register of
the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less
than fair value at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated
preliminary dumping margins reflected in the preliminary determination
published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The preliminary determinations concerning sales at less
than fair value are due on March 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).
Dated: December 2, 2015.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-31083 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
