Stainless Steel Bar From India: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 91118-91120 [2016-30323]

Download as PDF 91118 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Notices entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h). Dated: December 9, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues III. Background IV. Scope of the Order V. Discussion of Interested Party Comments Comment 1: Whether Certain of Toyo Kohan’s Home Market Transactions Were Made Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade and Should Be Excluded From Analysis Comment 2: U.S. Date of Sale Comment 3: Whether the Costs for a Certain Control Number Should Be Disregarded VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2016–30306 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES [A–533–810] Stainless Steel Bar From India: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India to determine whether to reinstate the order with ` respect to Viraj Profıles Ltd. (Viraj) and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates Hindustan Inox, Precision Metals and Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (collectively, Venus). DATES: Effective December 16, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0410. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 21, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty (AD) order on SSB from India.1 On September 14, 2004, the Department conditionally revoked the Order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., and Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (collectively, Viraj, and now known as Viraj Profiles Limited 2), based on a finding of three years of no dumping.3 On September 13, 2011, the Department conditionally revoked the Order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Venus, based on a finding of three years of no dumping.4 1 See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995) (Order). 2 In July 2006, Viraj Forgings Ltd. merged with Viraj Alloys Ltd.; in April 2007, Viraj Alloys and Viraj Impoexpo Ltd. merged into Viraj Profiles Ltd. See Letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bar From India—Petitioners’ Request for Changed Circumstances Reviews,’’ dated September 29, 2016 (CCR Request) at Exhibit GEN–1. 3 See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55409 (September 14, 2004) (Viraj Revocation). The regulatory provision governing partial revocation at the time of Viraj’s (and Venus’s) revocation was 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). The relevant language remained substantively unchanged when 19 CFR 353.25 was superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 in 1997. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7308 (February 27, 1996) (1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking); see also Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27325–26, 27399–402 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble). The portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial revocations of orders as to specific companies has been revoked for all reviews initiated on or after June 20, 2012. See Modification to Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Final Rule, 77 FR 29875 (May 21, 2012) (Revocation Final Rule). 4 See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation of the Order, in Part, 76 FR 56401 (September 13, 2011) (Venus Revocation). PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 On September 29, 2016, the petitioners 5 alleged that, since their conditional revocation from the Order, there is evidence that Viraj and Venus have both resumed sales to the United States at prices below normal value (NV). The petitioners note that Viraj and Venus agreed in writing to reinstatement into the AD order if either company were found to have resumed dumping, and alleges that, because Viraj and Venus violated this agreement, the Department should initiate a changed circumstances review (CCR) to determine whether to reinstate Viraj and Venus into the Order.6 In November 2016, Viraj and Venus objected to the petitioners’ request for a CCR.7 On November 28, 2016, the petitioners submitted a rebuttal to Venus’ objection to the request for a CCR.8 Also in November 2016, the Department extended the time period for determining whether to initiate the CCR by 45 days to December 28, 2016.9 In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b), and as discussed in further detail below, the Department finds the information submitted by the petitioners sufficient to warrant initiation of a CCR of the AD order on SSB from India with respect to Viraj and Venus. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. In this CCR, we intend to determine whether Viraj or Venus sold SSB from India at less than NV subsequent to their revocations from the Order. If we make an affirmative preliminarily finding, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of SSB manufactured in India and exported by the company(ies) for which we made an affirmative finding. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the order is stainless steel bar. Stainless steel bar 5 Carpenter Technology Corporation, Crucible Industries LLC, Electralloy, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., North American Stainless, Outokumpu Stainless Bar, LLC, Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners) 6 See CCR Request. 7 See Letter from Viraj, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bar from India,’’ dated November 14, 2016 (Viraj Rebuttal) and Letter from Venus, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bars (‘‘SSB’’) from India—Response to Request for Changed Circumstances Review,’’ dated November 4, 2016 (Venus Rebuttal). 8 See Letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Stainless Bar from India—Petitioners’ Comments Concerning Venus’ Rebuttal Comments to Petitioners’ Changed Circumstances Review Request,’’ dated November 29, 2016. 9 See Memorandum, ‘‘Extension of Deadline to Initiate Changed Circumstances Review,’’ dated November 10, 2016. E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM 16DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Notices means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hotrolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut-to-length flatrolled products (i.e., cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Allegation of Resumed Dumping The allegation of resumed dumping upon which the Department has based its decision to initiate a CCR is detailed below. The sources of data for the adjustments that the petitioners calculated relating to NV and U.S. price are discussed in greater detail in the Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist dated concurrently with this notice. 1. Constructed Export Price The petitioners based U.S. price upon offers for sale from the respondents’ U.S. affiliates to unaffiliated customers in the United States, which they obtained from a proprietary source.10 The offers for sale identify prices and terms of sale for a number of SSB models sold by the respondents’ U.S. affiliates.11 The petitioners made 10 See CCR Request at 11–12 and Exhibits AD–IN– 2.B.1 and AD–IN–2.B.2. 11 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 adjustments for movement expenses consistent with the terms of sale, for the U.S. affiliates’ profit and selling expenses, and for imputed credit expenses.12 We recalculated the imputed expenses to be consistent with Policy Bulletin 98.1.13 2. Normal Value The petitioners based NV on home market prices obtained from a proprietary source.14 The petitioners made an adjustment for imputed credit expenses.15 3. Cost of Production The petitioners based COP on the costs of an integrated U.S. producer of the subject merchandise, as the best information reasonably available, and made adjustments for known differences in cost between the domestic industry and the respondents.16 Based on a comparison of home market sales and the COP, the petitioners assert that there is reason to believe or suspect that certain home market sales made by Viraj and Venus were priced below COP.17 Accordingly, the petitioners consider those home market sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade, and relied on the remaining home market sales above COP to establish normal value.18 2. Alleged Margins of Dumping The petitioners allege that there is evidence that Viraj and Venus have both resumed dumping SSB in the United States that is sufficient to warrant initiation of a CCR to determine whether the respondents should be reinstated into the AD order. The petitioners’ estimated dumping margins, as revised to recalculate imputed credit expenses for U.S. sales, range from 9.27 to 45.98 percent for Viraj and from 26.59 to 43.55 percent for Venus.19 Comments by Interested Parties As noted above, in November 2016, Viraj and Venus submitted comments on the petitioners’ request that the Department initiate a CCR.20 These comments are detailed in the Changed 12 Id. at 11–12 and Exhibits AD–IN–2.A.1 and AD–IN–2.A.2. 13 See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist at ‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ section. 14 Id. at 15 and Exhibits AD–IN–3.A.1 and AD– IN–3.A.2. 15 Id. 16 Id. at 15–17 and Exhibits AD–IN–4.F.1 and AD–IN–4.F.2. 17 Id. at 17 and Exhibits AD–IN–5.A.1 and AD– IN–5.A.2. 18 Id. at 17 and Exhibits AD–IN–6.A and AD–IN– 6.B. 19 See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist at ‘‘Estimated Margins’’ section. 20 See Viraj Rebuttal and Venus Rebuttal. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 91119 Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request ‘‘from an interested party for review of an Aantidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.’’ After examining the petitioners’ allegation and supporting documentation, we find that the petitioners have provided evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to initiate a review to determine whether Viraj or Venus have resumed dumping and should be reinstated in the Order.21 The Department’s authority to reinstate a revoked company into an AD order by means of a CCR derives from sections 751(b) and (d) of the Act.22 The Department’s authority to revoke an order is expressed in section 751(d) of the Act. The statute, however, provides no detailed description of the criteria, procedures, or conditions relating to the Department’s exercise of this authority. Accordingly, the Department issued regulations that set forth in detail how the Department will exercise the authority granted to it under the statute. At the time of the respondents’ revocations from the Order, a Department regulation authorized the partial and conditional revocation of orders as to companies that were determined not to have made sales at less than NV for the equivalent of three consecutive years and that certified to the immediate reinstatement into an order if they resumed dumping.23 Although the regulatory provision for partial and conditional revocation of companies from orders has since been revoked, we have clarified that all conditionally revoked companies remain subject to their certified agreements to be reinstated into the 21 See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist. 22 See Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 649 F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Sahaviriya) (‘‘{T}his court holds, applying Chevron deference, that Commerce reasonably interpreted its revocation authority under {section 751(d) of the Act} to permit conditional revocation . . . .’’); id. at 1378–80 (finding that Commerce properly conducted a changed circumstances review for purposes of reconsidering revocation). 23 See 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). As noted above, the relevant language regarding reinstatement remained substantively unchanged when 19 CFR 353.25 was superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 (1997), and the portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial revocations of orders as to specific companies has been revoked for all reviews initiated on or after June 20, 2012. See 1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Preamble; Revocation Final Rule. E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM 16DEN1 91120 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Notices order from which they were revoked if the Department finds that the company has resumed dumping.24 For these reasons, conducting a CCR pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act to determine whether to reinstate Viraj or Venus into the Order is consistent with the statute and with the certification that the respondents signed as a precondition to their conditional revocation.25 Period of Changed Circumstances Review The Department intends to request data from Viraj and Venus for the July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, period to determine whether it should reinstate the Order with respect to these companies because they resumed dumping. Public Comment The Department intends to publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of CCR in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department’s preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b) of the Department’s regulations. Dated: December 12, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2016–30323 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 24 See Revocation Final Rule, 77 FR at 29882. e.g., Sahaviriya, 649 F.3d at 1380; Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 73 FR 18766, 18769 (April 7, 2008); see also Viraj Revocation, 69 FR at 55411 (‘‘Viraj provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e) . . . {including} an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV.’’); see also Venus Revocation, 76 at 56402–3 (‘‘the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if we find that it has resumed making sales at less than fair value’’). See also Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist at Exhibit 6 for copies of the respondents’ agreements. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 25 See, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–475–818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: On August 12, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta (pasta) from Italy. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. As a result of our analysis of the comments and information received, these final results differ from the Preliminary Results with respect to Industria Alimentare Colavita S.p.A. (Indalco) and Liguori Pastificio Dal 1820 (Liguori). For the final weighted-average dumping margins, see the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section below. SUMMARY: DATES: Effective December 16, 2016. Joy Zhang (Liguori) or George McMahon (Indalco), 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) 482–1168 or (202) 482–1167, respectively. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 12, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results.1 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. On September 7, 2016, Liguori submitted a request for a hearing, which was withdrawn on October 6, 2016.2 On August 31, 2016, the Department revised the briefing schedule.3 On 1 See Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015, 81 FR 53404 (August 12, 2016) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Liguori’s letter titled, ‘‘Hearing Request of Liguori Pastificio dal 1820 S.p.A.,’’ dated September 7, 2016. See also Liguori’s letter titled, ‘‘Certain Pasta from Italy: Withdrawal of Hearing Request of Liguori Pastificio dal 1820 S.p.A.,’’ dated October 6, 2016. 3 See the Department’s Memorandum to All Interested Parties titled, ‘‘Postponement of Briefing Schedule,’’ dated August 31, 2016. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 September 19, 2016, Petitioners,4 Indalco, and Liguori submitted their case briefs. On September 26, 2016, Petitioners, Indalco, and Liguori submitted their rebuttal briefs. Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.5 Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and 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 in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at https:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have recalculated Indalco and Liguori’s weighted-average dumping margins.6 As a result of the 4 Petitioners consist of New World Pasta Company, American Italian Pasta Company and Dakota Growers Pasta Company. 5 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission: Certain Pasta from Italy; 2014–2015’’ from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum) and incorporated herein by reference. 6 See Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also Memorandum to the File, Through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office III, from Joy E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM 16DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91118-91120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Changed Circumstances Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a 
changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on stainless 
steel bar (SSB) from India to determine whether to reinstate the order 
with respect to Viraj Prof[igrave]les Ltd. (Viraj) and Venus Wire 
Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates Hindustan Inox, Precision 
Metals and Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (collectively, 
Venus).

DATES: Effective December 16, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, Enforcement and 
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On February 21, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty 
(AD) order on SSB from India.\1\ On September 14, 2004, the Department 
conditionally revoked the Order with respect to merchandise produced 
and exported by Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., and Viraj 
Impoexpo, Ltd. (collectively, Viraj, and now known as Viraj Profiles 
Limited \2\), based on a finding of three years of no dumping.\3\ On 
September 13, 2011, the Department conditionally revoked the Order with 
respect to merchandise produced and exported by Venus, based on a 
finding of three years of no dumping.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from 
Brazil, India, and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995) (Order).
    \2\ In July 2006, Viraj Forgings Ltd. merged with Viraj Alloys 
Ltd.; in April 2007, Viraj Alloys and Viraj Impoexpo Ltd. merged 
into Viraj Profiles Ltd. See Letter from the petitioners, 
``Stainless Steel Bar From India--Petitioners' Request for Changed 
Circumstances Reviews,'' dated September 29, 2016 (CCR Request) at 
Exhibit GEN-1.
    \3\ See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results, 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and 
Determination To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55409 (September 14, 2004) 
(Viraj Revocation). The regulatory provision governing partial 
revocation at the time of Viraj's (and Venus's) revocation was 19 
CFR 353.25 (1997). The relevant language remained substantively 
unchanged when 19 CFR 353.25 was superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 in 
1997. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7308 
(February 27, 1996) (1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking); see also 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27325-26, 27399-402 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble). The portion of 19 CFR 
351.222 related to partial revocations of orders as to specific 
companies has been revoked for all reviews initiated on or after 
June 20, 2012. See Modification to Regulation Concerning the 
Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Final 
Rule, 77 FR 29875 (May 21, 2012) (Revocation Final Rule).
    \4\ See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation of the Order, 
in Part, 76 FR 56401 (September 13, 2011) (Venus Revocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 29, 2016, the petitioners \5\ alleged that, since 
their conditional revocation from the Order, there is evidence that 
Viraj and Venus have both resumed sales to the United States at prices 
below normal value (NV). The petitioners note that Viraj and Venus 
agreed in writing to reinstatement into the AD order if either company 
were found to have resumed dumping, and alleges that, because Viraj and 
Venus violated this agreement, the Department should initiate a changed 
circumstances review (CCR) to determine whether to reinstate Viraj and 
Venus into the Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Carpenter Technology Corporation, Crucible Industries LLC, 
Electralloy, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., North American 
Stainless, Outokumpu Stainless Bar, LLC, Universal Stainless & Alloy 
Products, Inc., and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively, 
the petitioners)
    \6\ See CCR Request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In November 2016, Viraj and Venus objected to the petitioners' 
request for a CCR.\7\ On November 28, 2016, the petitioners submitted a 
rebuttal to Venus' objection to the request for a CCR.\8\ Also in 
November 2016, the Department extended the time period for determining 
whether to initiate the CCR by 45 days to December 28, 2016.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Letter from Viraj, ``Stainless Steel Bar from India,'' 
dated November 14, 2016 (Viraj Rebuttal) and Letter from Venus, 
``Stainless Steel Bars (``SSB'') from India--Response to Request for 
Changed Circumstances Review,'' dated November 4, 2016 (Venus 
Rebuttal).
    \8\ See Letter from the petitioners, ``Stainless Bar from 
India--Petitioners' Comments Concerning Venus' Rebuttal Comments to 
Petitioners' Changed Circumstances Review Request,'' dated November 
29, 2016.
    \9\ See Memorandum, ``Extension of Deadline to Initiate Changed 
Circumstances Review,'' dated November 10, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b), and as discussed in further 
detail below, the Department finds the information submitted by the 
petitioners sufficient to warrant initiation of a CCR of the AD order 
on SSB from India with respect to Viraj and Venus. The period of review 
(POR) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
    In this CCR, we intend to determine whether Viraj or Venus sold SSB 
from India at less than NV subsequent to their revocations from the 
Order. If we make an affirmative preliminarily finding, we will direct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of SSB manufactured in India and exported by the company(ies) 
for which we made an affirmative finding.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is stainless steel bar. 
Stainless steel bar

[[Page 91119]]

means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been 
either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise 
cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along 
their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, 
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other 
convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless 
steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether 
produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, 
and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other 
deformations produced during the rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness 
have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm 
or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures 
at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in 
coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, 
which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and 
angles, shapes, and sections.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Allegation of Resumed Dumping

    The allegation of resumed dumping upon which the Department has 
based its decision to initiate a CCR is detailed below. The sources of 
data for the adjustments that the petitioners calculated relating to NV 
and U.S. price are discussed in greater detail in the Changed 
Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist dated concurrently with this 
notice.
1. Constructed Export Price
    The petitioners based U.S. price upon offers for sale from the 
respondents' U.S. affiliates to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States, which they obtained from a proprietary source.\10\ The offers 
for sale identify prices and terms of sale for a number of SSB models 
sold by the respondents' U.S. affiliates.\11\ The petitioners made 
adjustments for movement expenses consistent with the terms of sale, 
for the U.S. affiliates' profit and selling expenses, and for imputed 
credit expenses.\12\ We recalculated the imputed expenses to be 
consistent with Policy Bulletin 98.1.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CCR Request at 11-12 and Exhibits AD-IN-2.B.1 and AD-
IN-2.B.2.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id. at 11-12 and Exhibits AD-IN-2.A.1 and AD-IN-2.A.2.
    \13\ See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist at 
``Constructed Export Price'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Normal Value
    The petitioners based NV on home market prices obtained from a 
proprietary source.\14\ The petitioners made an adjustment for imputed 
credit expenses.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 15 and Exhibits AD-IN-3.A.1 and AD-IN-3.A.2.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Cost of Production
    The petitioners based COP on the costs of an integrated U.S. 
producer of the subject merchandise, as the best information reasonably 
available, and made adjustments for known differences in cost between 
the domestic industry and the respondents.\16\ Based on a comparison of 
home market sales and the COP, the petitioners assert that there is 
reason to believe or suspect that certain home market sales made by 
Viraj and Venus were priced below COP.\17\ Accordingly, the petitioners 
consider those home market sales to be outside the ordinary course of 
trade, and relied on the remaining home market sales above COP to 
establish normal value.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. at 15-17 and Exhibits AD-IN-4.F.1 and AD-IN-4.F.2.
    \17\ Id. at 17 and Exhibits AD-IN-5.A.1 and AD-IN-5.A.2.
    \18\ Id. at 17 and Exhibits AD-IN-6.A and AD-IN-6.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Alleged Margins of Dumping
    The petitioners allege that there is evidence that Viraj and Venus 
have both resumed dumping SSB in the United States that is sufficient 
to warrant initiation of a CCR to determine whether the respondents 
should be reinstated into the AD order. The petitioners' estimated 
dumping margins, as revised to recalculate imputed credit expenses for 
U.S. sales, range from 9.27 to 45.98 percent for Viraj and from 26.59 
to 43.55 percent for Venus.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist at 
``Estimated Margins'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments by Interested Parties

    As noted above, in November 2016, Viraj and Venus submitted 
comments on the petitioners' request that the Department initiate a 
CCR.\20\ These comments are detailed in the Changed Circumstances 
Review Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Viraj Rebuttal and Venus Rebuttal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct 
a CCR upon receipt of a request ``from an interested party for review 
of an Aantidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances 
sufficient to warrant a review of the order.'' After examining the 
petitioners' allegation and supporting documentation, we find that the 
petitioners have provided evidence of changed circumstances sufficient 
to initiate a review to determine whether Viraj or Venus have resumed 
dumping and should be reinstated in the Order.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's authority to reinstate a revoked company into an 
AD order by means of a CCR derives from sections 751(b) and (d) of the 
Act.\22\ The Department's authority to revoke an order is expressed in 
section 751(d) of the Act. The statute, however, provides no detailed 
description of the criteria, procedures, or conditions relating to the 
Department's exercise of this authority. Accordingly, the Department 
issued regulations that set forth in detail how the Department will 
exercise the authority granted to it under the statute. At the time of 
the respondents' revocations from the Order, a Department regulation 
authorized the partial and conditional revocation of orders as to 
companies that were determined not to have made sales at less than NV 
for the equivalent of three consecutive years and that certified to the 
immediate reinstatement into an order if they resumed dumping.\23\ 
Although the regulatory provision for partial and conditional 
revocation of companies from orders has since been revoked, we have 
clarified that all conditionally revoked companies remain subject to 
their certified agreements to be reinstated into the

[[Page 91120]]

order from which they were revoked if the Department finds that the 
company has resumed dumping.\24\ For these reasons, conducting a CCR 
pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act to determine whether to reinstate 
Viraj or Venus into the Order is consistent with the statute and with 
the certification that the respondents signed as a precondition to 
their conditional revocation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 649 F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Sahaviriya) 
(``{T{time} his court holds, applying Chevron deference, that 
Commerce reasonably interpreted its revocation authority under 
{section 751(d) of the Act{time}  to permit conditional revocation . 
. . .''); id. at 1378-80 (finding that Commerce properly conducted a 
changed circumstances review for purposes of reconsidering 
revocation).
    \23\ See 19 CFR 353.25 (1997). As noted above, the relevant 
language regarding reinstatement remained substantively unchanged 
when 19 CFR 353.25 was superseded by 19 CFR 351.222 (1997), and the 
portion of 19 CFR 351.222 related to partial revocations of orders 
as to specific companies has been revoked for all reviews initiated 
on or after June 20, 2012. See 1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 
Preamble; Revocation Final Rule.
    \24\ See Revocation Final Rule, 77 FR at 29882.
    \25\ See, e.g., Sahaviriya, 649 F.3d at 1380; Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 73 FR 18766, 18769 (April 
7, 2008); see also Viraj Revocation, 69 FR at 55411 (``Viraj 
provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e) 
. . . {including{time}  an agreement to immediate reinstatement of 
the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent 
to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV.''); see 
also Venus Revocation, 76 at 56402-3 (``the company has agreed to 
immediate reinstatement of the order if we find that it has resumed 
making sales at less than fair value''). See also Changed 
Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist at Exhibit 6 for copies of 
the respondents' agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Changed Circumstances Review

    The Department intends to request data from Viraj and Venus for the 
July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, period to determine whether it 
should reinstate the Order with respect to these companies because they 
resumed dumping.

Public Comment

    The Department intends to publish in the Federal Register a notice 
of preliminary results of CCR in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) 
and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary 
factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), 
interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends 
to issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits 
set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e).
    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b) of the Department's 
regulations.

    Dated: December 12, 2016.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2016-30323 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

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