Certain Cold Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 25743-25744 [2019-11578]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Notices khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. Commerce’s regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304–306. Information Required From Interested Parties Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with Commerce’s regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, Commerce will automatically revoke the order without further review.7 If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce’s regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that Commerce’s information requirements are distinct from the Commission’s information requirements. Consult Commerce’s regulations for information regarding Commerce’s conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult Commerce’s regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and 7 See 17:16 Jun 03, 2019 Dated: May 30, 2019. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2019–11655 Filed 6–3–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–881] Certain Cold Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Investigation Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: On February 26, 2019, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) issued final judgment in Hyundai Steel Company. v. United States, Court No. 16–00228, sustaining the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) final results of the redetermination pursuant to remand. Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Timken Co., v United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce’s Amended Final Results and Antidumping Duty Order published on September 20, 2016 (Order). Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel). SUMMARY: DATES: Applicable March 8, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Daniel Deku, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482–5075, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). VerDate Sep<11>2014 countervailing duty proceedings at Commerce. This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 25743 Background Commerce published the Final Determination on July 29, 2016,1 and issued the antidumping duty order on September 20, 2016.2 Hyundai Steel filed an action before the CIT to challenge several aspects of Commerce’s Final Determination. After review, the Court sustained Commerce’s determination that Hyundai Steel failed to demonstrate that the affiliated parties who supplied Hyundai Steel with home market movement, home market warehousing, U.S. international freight, and U.S. inland freight expenses did so on an arm’s-length basis.3 The Court further sustained Commerce’s application of adverse facts available (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as amended, to the affiliated parties who provided Hyundai Steel with home market movement, home market warehousing, U.S. international freight, and U.S. inland freight.4 Additionally, the Court sustained Commerce’s application of AFA to three product specifications reported by Hyundai Steel.5 However, the Court remanded to Commerce for further explanation or reconsideration whether it intended to apply AFA to those U.S. sales where: (1) Hyundai Steel used an unaffiliated freight provider to supply domestic inland freight; or (2) Hyundai Steel incurred no domestic inland freight charges in the U.S.6 While the Court found that Commerce appropriately assigned an AFA freight amount to U.S. sales for which Hyundai Steel secured freight services from affiliated parties,7 the Court found Commerce offered no justification as to why Commerce applied AFA freight amounts to U.S. sales for which Hyundai Steel either: (1) Incurred no domestic inland freight or warehousing expense; or (2) the domestic inland freight or warehousing was provided by unaffiliated parties.8 Additionally, the Court determined that the AFA adjustment applied to 1 See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 49953 (July 29, 2016) (Final Determination). 2 See Certain Cold Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, India, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determinations for Brazil and the United Kingdom and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 64432 (September 20, 2016) (Order). 3 See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Slip Op. 18–80 Court No., 16–00228 dated June 28, 2018 (Remand Order) at 20–22. 4 Id. at 22–31. 5 Id. at 38–43. 6 Id. at 34. 7 Id. at 22–31. 8 Id. at 34. E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 25744 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Notices khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Hyundai Steel’s U.S. ‘‘Spec C’’ sales was not supported by substantial evidence.9 In the Final Determination, as AFA, Commerce selected the highest calculated rate for any other reported sale by Hyundai Steel.10 The Court sustained the application of an AFA rate on Hyundai Steel’s Spec C sales.11 However, the Court found the U.S. sale associated with the highest calculated rate for Hyundai Steel in the Final Determination to be aberrational.12 The Court noted that the U.S. sale selected as AFA was invoiced in a different manner than other Hyundai Steel sales because of the nature of the product.13 Based on the foregoing, the Court remanded this matter to Commerce, and directed Commerce to select a AFA margin which was not based on an aberrational sale.14 The Court also directed Commerce to reconsider its denial of a CEP offset concerning Hyundai Steel’s constructed export price (CEP) sales.15 The Court noted that Commerce determined that one level of trade (LOT) existed in the home market.16 The Court also noted that Commerce found Hyundai Steel to have three channels of distribution in the U.S. market: Channel 1 sales (export price (EP) sales through unaffiliated Korean distributors); Channel 2 sales (CEP sales through Hyundai Steel’s U.S. affiliates to unaffiliated processors); and Channel 3 sales (CEP sales through Hyundai Steel’s U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated and affiliated U.S. processors). Finally, the Court noted that, regarding the LOT in the U.S. market, Commerce found: (1) That Hyundai Steel’s Channel 1 and Channel 3 sales were at a more advanced LOT than Channel 2 sales; and (2) that Hyundai Steel’s Channel 1 and Channel 3 sales were at the same LOT as its home market sales.17 The Court determined that Commerce’s decision that Hyundai Steel’s U.S. CEP sales were at the same LOT as Hyundai’s home market sales ‘‘cannot be reconciled’’ with Commerce’s 9 Id. at 43–46. ‘‘Spec C’’ sales are sales that Hyundai Steel reported as commercial quality, which we determined to be of either drawing or deep drawing quality. See Final Determination and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM) at Comment 12. 10 See Final Determination and accompanying IDM at Comment 12. 11 See Remand Order at 39–41. 12 Id. at 43–46. 13 Id. at 45. 14 Id. at 46. 15 Id. at 47–49. 16 Id. at 47–48 (citing Final Determination and accompanying IDM at Comment 18). 17 Id. at 48 (citing Final Determination and accompanying IDM at Comment 18). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:16 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 determination that Hyundai Steel’s Channel 2 U.S. sales are at a less advanced LOT than Hyundai Steel’s Channel 1 and Channel 3 U.S. sales. Thus, the Court directed Commerce to reconsider this analysis and determination.18 Finally, the Court directed Commerce to reconsider whether to correct ministerial errors which Commerce had previously found to have no effect on the margin calculation and, thus, declined to correct in the LTFV investigation.19 The errors involved: (1) The magnitude by which the AFA rate selected on Hyundai Steel’s Spec C sales exceeded the calculated rate set forth in Hyundai Steel’s margin calculation; 20 and (2) the application of AFA for certain Hyundai Steel product matching control numbers (CONNUMs).21 On October 16, 2018, we filed our Redetermination.22 In our Redetermination, we removed our application of AFA for domestic movement expenses for transactions for which either Hyundai Steel did not incur domestic movement expenses or the movement expenses were provided by unrelated parties.23 We also reanalyzed our application of AFA to Hyundai Steel’s ‘‘Spec C’’ sales, and assigned a revised FA rate to Hyundai Steel’s ‘‘Spec C’’ sales based on the instructions of the Court.24 Additionally we reconsidered Hyundai Steel’s claim for a CEP offset based on the instructions of the Court, and continued to determine that no constructed export price (CEP) offset is warranted on Hyundai Steel’s U.S. sales.25 Finally, we have determined that correction of the ministerial errors identified by the Court have no effect on Hyundai Steel’s margin calculation.26 18 Id. at 49 (citing Final Determination and accompanying IDM at Comment 18). 19 Id. at 50. 20 See Memorandum, ‘‘Re: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Allegation of Ministerial Errors in the Final Determination,’’ dated August 31, 2016 (Ministerial Error Memorandum) at 2–3. 21 Id. at 6–8. 22 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, Hyundai Steel Company. v. United States, Court No. 16–00228, Slip Op. 18–80 (CIT June 28, 2018), dated October 16, 2018 (Redetermination), available at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.htm. 23 Id. at 6–8. 24 Id. at 8–9. 25 Id. at 9–11. 26 Id. at 12. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 On February 26, 2019, the Court sustained Commerce’s Redetermination, and entered final judgment.27 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the Federal Circuit has held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The Court’s February 26, 2019, judgment sustaining the Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department’s Amended Final Results and Order. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce amends the Amended Final Results of the Order with respect to the dumping margin of Hyundai Steel. The revised cash deposit rates for the LTFV investigation, is as follows: Exporter Weighted average dumping margin (percent) Hyundai Steel Company ............. 28.42 Cash Deposit Requirements In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to collect a cash deposit of 28.42 percent for entries of subject merchandise exported by Hyundai Steel, effective March 8, 2019, in accordance with the Timken Notice. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516(A)(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 29, 2019. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2019–11578 Filed 6–3–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 27 See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Slip Op. 19–24 Court No., 16–00228 dated February 26, 2019 (Final Judgement). E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25743-25744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-881]


Certain Cold Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of 
Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and 
Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Investigation

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

SUMMARY: On February 26, 2019, the United States Court of International 
Trade (the Court) issued final judgment in Hyundai Steel Company. v. 
United States, Court No. 16-00228, sustaining the Department of 
Commerce's (Commerce) final results of the redetermination pursuant to 
remand. Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Timken Co., v 
United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by 
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. 
Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), Commerce is notifying the public that 
the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's 
Amended Final Results and Antidumping Duty Order published on September 
20, 2016 (Order). Commerce is amending the final results with respect 
to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Hyundai Steel 
Company (Hyundai Steel).

DATES: Applicable March 8, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Daniel Deku, AD/
CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475 or (202) 
482-5075, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Commerce published the Final Determination on July 29, 2016,\1\ and 
issued the antidumping duty order on September 20, 2016.\2\ Hyundai 
Steel filed an action before the CIT to challenge several aspects of 
Commerce's Final Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the 
Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 81 FR 49953 (July 29, 2016) (Final Determination).
    \2\ See Certain Cold Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, 
India, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom: Amended Final 
Affirmative Antidumping Determinations for Brazil and the United 
Kingdom and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 64432 (September 20, 
2016) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After review, the Court sustained Commerce's determination that 
Hyundai Steel failed to demonstrate that the affiliated parties who 
supplied Hyundai Steel with home market movement, home market 
warehousing, U.S. international freight, and U.S. inland freight 
expenses did so on an arm's-length basis.\3\ The Court further 
sustained Commerce's application of adverse facts available (AFA), 
pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the 
Act), as amended, to the affiliated parties who provided Hyundai Steel 
with home market movement, home market warehousing, U.S. international 
freight, and U.S. inland freight.\4\ Additionally, the Court sustained 
Commerce's application of AFA to three product specifications reported 
by Hyundai Steel.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Slip Op. 18-80 
Court No., 16-00228 dated June 28, 2018 (Remand Order) at 20-22.
    \4\ Id. at 22-31.
    \5\ Id. at 38-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Court remanded to Commerce for further explanation or 
reconsideration whether it intended to apply AFA to those U.S. sales 
where: (1) Hyundai Steel used an unaffiliated freight provider to 
supply domestic inland freight; or (2) Hyundai Steel incurred no 
domestic inland freight charges in the U.S.\6\ While the Court found 
that Commerce appropriately assigned an AFA freight amount to U.S. 
sales for which Hyundai Steel secured freight services from affiliated 
parties,\7\ the Court found Commerce offered no justification as to why 
Commerce applied AFA freight amounts to U.S. sales for which Hyundai 
Steel either: (1) Incurred no domestic inland freight or warehousing 
expense; or (2) the domestic inland freight or warehousing was provided 
by unaffiliated parties.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at 34.
    \7\ Id. at 22-31.
    \8\ Id. at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Court determined that the AFA adjustment applied 
to

[[Page 25744]]

Hyundai Steel's U.S. ``Spec C'' sales was not supported by substantial 
evidence.\9\ In the Final Determination, as AFA, Commerce selected the 
highest calculated rate for any other reported sale by Hyundai 
Steel.\10\ The Court sustained the application of an AFA rate on 
Hyundai Steel's Spec C sales.\11\ However, the Court found the U.S. 
sale associated with the highest calculated rate for Hyundai Steel in 
the Final Determination to be aberrational.\12\ The Court noted that 
the U.S. sale selected as AFA was invoiced in a different manner than 
other Hyundai Steel sales because of the nature of the product.\13\ 
Based on the foregoing, the Court remanded this matter to Commerce, and 
directed Commerce to select a AFA margin which was not based on an 
aberrational sale.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 43-46. ``Spec C'' sales are sales that Hyundai Steel 
reported as commercial quality, which we determined to be of either 
drawing or deep drawing quality. See Final Determination and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM) at Comment 12.
    \10\ See Final Determination and accompanying IDM at Comment 12.
    \11\ See Remand Order at 39-41.
    \12\ Id. at 43-46.
    \13\ Id. at 45.
    \14\ Id. at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court also directed Commerce to reconsider its denial of a CEP 
offset concerning Hyundai Steel's constructed export price (CEP) 
sales.\15\ The Court noted that Commerce determined that one level of 
trade (LOT) existed in the home market.\16\ The Court also noted that 
Commerce found Hyundai Steel to have three channels of distribution in 
the U.S. market: Channel 1 sales (export price (EP) sales through 
unaffiliated Korean distributors); Channel 2 sales (CEP sales through 
Hyundai Steel's U.S. affiliates to unaffiliated processors); and 
Channel 3 sales (CEP sales through Hyundai Steel's U.S. affiliate to 
unaffiliated and affiliated U.S. processors). Finally, the Court noted 
that, regarding the LOT in the U.S. market, Commerce found: (1) That 
Hyundai Steel's Channel 1 and Channel 3 sales were at a more advanced 
LOT than Channel 2 sales; and (2) that Hyundai Steel's Channel 1 and 
Channel 3 sales were at the same LOT as its home market sales.\17\ The 
Court determined that Commerce's decision that Hyundai Steel's U.S. CEP 
sales were at the same LOT as Hyundai's home market sales ``cannot be 
reconciled'' with Commerce's determination that Hyundai Steel's Channel 
2 U.S. sales are at a less advanced LOT than Hyundai Steel's Channel 1 
and Channel 3 U.S. sales. Thus, the Court directed Commerce to 
reconsider this analysis and determination.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 47-49.
    \16\ Id. at 47-48 (citing Final Determination and accompanying 
IDM at Comment 18).
    \17\ Id. at 48 (citing Final Determination and accompanying IDM 
at Comment 18).
    \18\ Id. at 49 (citing Final Determination and accompanying IDM 
at Comment 18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Court directed Commerce to reconsider whether to 
correct ministerial errors which Commerce had previously found to have 
no effect on the margin calculation and, thus, declined to correct in 
the LTFV investigation.\19\ The errors involved: (1) The magnitude by 
which the AFA rate selected on Hyundai Steel's Spec C sales exceeded 
the calculated rate set forth in Hyundai Steel's margin calculation; 
\20\ and (2) the application of AFA for certain Hyundai Steel product 
matching control numbers (CONNUMs).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 50.
    \20\ See Memorandum, ``Re: Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: 
Allegation of Ministerial Errors in the Final Determination,'' dated 
August 31, 2016 (Ministerial Error Memorandum) at 2-3.
    \21\ Id. at 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 16, 2018, we filed our Redetermination.\22\ In our 
Redetermination, we removed our application of AFA for domestic 
movement expenses for transactions for which either Hyundai Steel did 
not incur domestic movement expenses or the movement expenses were 
provided by unrelated parties.\23\ We also reanalyzed our application 
of AFA to Hyundai Steel's ``Spec C'' sales, and assigned a revised FA 
rate to Hyundai Steel's ``Spec C'' sales based on the instructions of 
the Court.\24\ Additionally we reconsidered Hyundai Steel's claim for a 
CEP offset based on the instructions of the Court, and continued to 
determine that no constructed export price (CEP) offset is warranted on 
Hyundai Steel's U.S. sales.\25\ Finally, we have determined that 
correction of the ministerial errors identified by the Court have no 
effect on Hyundai Steel's margin calculation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of 
Korea, Hyundai Steel Company. v. United States, Court No. 16-00228, 
Slip Op. 18-80 (CIT June 28, 2018), dated October 16, 2018 
(Redetermination), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.htm.
    \23\ Id. at 6-8.
    \24\ Id. at 8-9.
    \25\ Id. at 9-11.
    \26\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 26, 2019, the Court sustained Commerce's 
Redetermination, and entered final judgment.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Slip Op. 19-24 
Court No., 16-00228 dated February 26, 2019 (Final Judgement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades, the Federal Circuit has held that, pursuant to section 
516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision 
not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce determination and must suspend 
liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The 
Court's February 26, 2019, judgment sustaining the Redetermination 
constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with 
the Department's Amended Final Results and Order. This notice is 
published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. 
Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of 
the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal 
or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce amends the 
Amended Final Results of the Order with respect to the dumping margin 
of Hyundai Steel. The revised cash deposit rates for the LTFV 
investigation, is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted
                                                               average
                          Exporter                             dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Steel Company......................................       28.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will 
instruct CBP to collect a cash deposit of 28.42 percent for entries of 
subject merchandise exported by Hyundai Steel, effective March 8, 2019, 
in accordance with the Timken Notice.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516(A)(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 29, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-11578 Filed 6-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P