Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results, 25844-25845 [2021-09943]

Download as PDF 25844 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 11, 2021 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration International Trade Administration North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904; Binational Panel Review: Notice of Request for Panel Review; Correction United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: ACTION: Notice; correction. The Department of Commerce published a document in the Federal Register of May 3, 2021, in which it announced the Binational Panel issuing its Interim Decision and Order in the matter of Large Residential Washers from Mexico. That document incorrectly stated that the Notice was for a Request for Panel Review, as well as incorrectly stating the date of issuance of the Interim Decision. SUMMARY: Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Corrections In the Federal Register of May 3, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021–09199, on page 23344, in the third column, the title of the document incorrectly states ‘‘Request for Panel Review’’. The correct title is ‘‘Interim Panel Decision’’. In the Federal Register of May 3, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021–09199, on page 23345, in the first column in the SUMMARY section, the date of issuance of the Interim Decision and Order incorrectly states April 26, 2019. The correct date of issuance is April 26, 2021. Dated: May 5, 2021. Paul E. Morris, U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. 2021–09874 Filed 5–10–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P [C–533–864] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court no. 19–00044, sustaining the Department of Commerce (Commerce)’s second remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from India covering the period November 6, 2015, through December 31, 2016. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT’s final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce’s final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the countervailable subsidy rate assigned to Uttam Galva Steels Limited/ Uttam Value Steels Limited/Uttam Galva Metallics Limited (collectively, Uttam Galva). DATES: Applicable May 9, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Neuman, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0486. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On March 25, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2015– 2016 CVD administrative review of CORE from India.1 Commerce found that Uttam Galva failed to properly report its affiliation with Lloyds Steels Industry Limited (LSIL).2 Therefore, Commerce applied total adverse facts available (AFA) pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) to Uttam Galva.3 1 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015–2016, 84 FR 11053 (March 25, 2019) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM). 2 See Final Results IDM at Comment 4. 3 Id. Commerce found, as AFA, that LSIL was cross-owned with Uttam Galva. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 May 10, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Commerce constructed an AFA rate by selecting the highest calculated rate for the identical, or a similar/comparable, program for each of the subsidy programs under review.4 Uttam Galva appealed Commerce’s Final Results with respect to the application of AFA and Commerce’s construction of the total AFA rate. On February 6, 2020, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce, sustaining Commerce’s decision to apply AFA to Uttam Galva for failing to disclose its affiliation with LSIL and granting Commerce’s request for a voluntary remand to reconsider the rate assigned to the Market Access Initiative Program and four additional programs.5 The CIT directed Commerce to consider Uttam Galva’s argument that 20 other subsidy programs should not be included in the total AFA rate and to further explain its rate selections.6 In its First Remand Redetermination, issued in May 2020, Commerce adjusted Uttam Galva’s total AFA rate to reflect the modifications for the five programs that were the subject of its voluntary remand request and continued to find that the other 20 programs were properly included in the AFA rate.7 Specifically, Commerce modified the AFA rate for the Market Access Initiative program from 16.63 percent to 6.06 percent and removed the following programs from Uttam Galva’s total AFA rate: (1) The Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate Remuneration; (2) State Government of Uttar Pradesh (SGUP) Exemption from Entry Tax for the Iron and Steel Industry; (3) SGUP Long-Term Interest Free Loans Equivalent to the Amount of Value-Added Tax and Central Sales Tax Paid; and (4) SGUP’s Interest Free Loans under the SGUP Development Promotion Rules 2003. The CIT remanded for a second time, sustaining Commerce’s determination to include the 20 disputed programs in Uttam Galva’s AFA rate calculation, and instructing Commerce to further explain its decision to apply total AFA to Uttam Galva in this review for Uttam Galva’s failure to properly report its affiliation with LSIL when Commerce applied partial AFA to respondent JSW Steel Limited (JSW) in the investigation of 4 Id. 5 See Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 19–00044, Slip Op. 20–15 (CIT February 6, 2020). 6 Id. at 13–14. 7 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 19–00044, Slip Op. 20–15 (CIT February 6, 2020), dated May 6, 2020 (First Remand Redetermination) at 27. E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM 11MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 11, 2021 / Notices this proceeding for JSW’s failure to properly report an affiliate.8 In its Second Remand Redetermination, issued in December 2020, Commerce explained that application of total AFA to Uttam Galva is warranted in this review and consistent with Commerce’s total AFA practice.9 The application of partial AFA to JSW was based on a distinct set of facts and, although the application of AFA to JSW was similarly based on the company respondent’s failure to properly report an affiliated entity, it is not determinative of the treatment of Uttam Galva in this segment because the circumstances surrounding the AFA determinations for each company were different.10 The CIT sustained Commerce’s final redetermination.11 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,12 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,13 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Commerce determination and must suspend 25845 liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s April 29, 2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce’s Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its Final Results with respect to Uttam Galva as follows: Manufacturer/exporter Subsidy rate (percent ad valorem) Uttam Galva Steels Limited/Uttam Value Steels Limited/Uttam Galva Metallics Limited/Lloyds Steels Industry Limited ................. 554.26 Cash Deposit Requirements ACTION: Notice. Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). SUMMARY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments on the collection of information relating to the CFTC Reparations Complaint Process, pursuant to the Commission’s regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’). DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 12, 2021. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ‘‘OMB Control No. 3038– 0115’’ by any of the following methods: • The Agency’s website, at http:// comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the website. • Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above. Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be 8 See Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 19–00044, Slip Op. 20–151 (CIT October 29, 2020). 9 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 19–00044, Slip Op. 20–151 (CIT October 29, 2020), dated December 22, 2020 (Second Remand Redetermination). 10 Id. 11 See Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 19–00044, Slip Op. 21–48 (CIT April 29, 2021). Liquidation of Suspended Entries In the event the CIT’s ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Uttam Galva at the subsidy rate listed above in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 6, 2021. James Maeder, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2021–09943 Filed 5–10–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Extend Information Collection 3038–0115, Reparations Complaint, CFTC Form 30 AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 May 10, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to https://www.cftc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Smith, Director, Office of Proceedings, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418–5371; email: esmith@cftc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. ‘‘Collection of Information’’ is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing a proposed notice to extend the existing collection of information listed below. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Title: Reparations Complaint, CFTC Form 30 (OMB Control No. 3038–0115). 12 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 13 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM 11MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25844-25845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-864]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Notice of 
Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results

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

SUMMARY: On April 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 
issued its final judgment in Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United 
States, Court no. 19-00044, sustaining the Department of Commerce 
(Commerce)'s second remand results pertaining to the administrative 
review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain corrosion-
resistant steel products (CORE) from India covering the period November 
6, 2015, through December 31, 2016. Commerce is notifying the public 
that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final 
results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the 
final results with respect to the countervailable subsidy rate assigned 
to Uttam Galva Steels Limited/ Uttam Value Steels Limited/Uttam Galva 
Metallics Limited (collectively, Uttam Galva).

DATES: Applicable May 9, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Neuman, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0486.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 25, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the 
2015-2016 CVD administrative review of CORE from India.\1\ Commerce 
found that Uttam Galva failed to properly report its affiliation with 
Lloyds Steels Industry Limited (LSIL).\2\ Therefore, Commerce applied 
total adverse facts available (AFA) pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) to Uttam Galva.\3\ 
Commerce constructed an AFA rate by selecting the highest calculated 
rate for the identical, or a similar/comparable, program for each of 
the subsidy programs under review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015-
2016, 84 FR 11053 (March 25, 2019) (Final Results), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 4.
    \3\ Id. Commerce found, as AFA, that LSIL was cross-owned with 
Uttam Galva.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Uttam Galva appealed Commerce's Final Results with respect to the 
application of AFA and Commerce's construction of the total AFA rate. 
On February 6, 2020, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce, 
sustaining Commerce's decision to apply AFA to Uttam Galva for failing 
to disclose its affiliation with LSIL and granting Commerce's request 
for a voluntary remand to reconsider the rate assigned to the Market 
Access Initiative Program and four additional programs.\5\ The CIT 
directed Commerce to consider Uttam Galva's argument that 20 other 
subsidy programs should not be included in the total AFA rate and to 
further explain its rate selections.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 
19-00044, Slip Op. 20-15 (CIT February 6, 2020).
    \6\ Id. at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its First Remand Redetermination, issued in May 2020, Commerce 
adjusted Uttam Galva's total AFA rate to reflect the modifications for 
the five programs that were the subject of its voluntary remand request 
and continued to find that the other 20 programs were properly included 
in the AFA rate.\7\ Specifically, Commerce modified the AFA rate for 
the Market Access Initiative program from 16.63 percent to 6.06 percent 
and removed the following programs from Uttam Galva's total AFA rate: 
(1) The Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration; (2) State Government of Uttar Pradesh (SGUP) Exemption 
from Entry Tax for the Iron and Steel Industry; (3) SGUP Long-Term 
Interest Free Loans Equivalent to the Amount of Value-Added Tax and 
Central Sales Tax Paid; and (4) SGUP's Interest Free Loans under the 
SGUP Development Promotion Rules 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Uttam Galva 
Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 19-00044, Slip Op. 20-15 
(CIT February 6, 2020), dated May 6, 2020 (First Remand 
Redetermination) at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT remanded for a second time, sustaining Commerce's 
determination to include the 20 disputed programs in Uttam Galva's AFA 
rate calculation, and instructing Commerce to further explain its 
decision to apply total AFA to Uttam Galva in this review for Uttam 
Galva's failure to properly report its affiliation with LSIL when 
Commerce applied partial AFA to respondent JSW Steel Limited (JSW) in 
the investigation of

[[Page 25845]]

this proceeding for JSW's failure to properly report an affiliate.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 
19-00044, Slip Op. 20-151 (CIT October 29, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Second Remand Redetermination, issued in December 2020, 
Commerce explained that application of total AFA to Uttam Galva is 
warranted in this review and consistent with Commerce's total AFA 
practice.\9\ The application of partial AFA to JSW was based on a 
distinct set of facts and, although the application of AFA to JSW was 
similarly based on the company respondent's failure to properly report 
an affiliated entity, it is not determinative of the treatment of Uttam 
Galva in this segment because the circumstances surrounding the AFA 
determinations for each company were different.\10\ The CIT sustained 
Commerce's final redetermination.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Uttam Galva 
Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 19-00044, Slip Op. 20-151 
(CIT October 29, 2020), dated December 22, 2020 (Second Remand 
Redetermination).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 
19-00044, Slip Op. 21-48 (CIT April 29, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\12\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\13\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, 
pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must publish 
a notice of court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce 
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's April 29, 2021, judgment 
constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with 
Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment 
of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \13\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending 
its Final Results with respect to Uttam Galva as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Subsidy rate
                 Manufacturer/exporter                     (percent ad
                                                             valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uttam Galva Steels Limited/Uttam Value Steels Limited/           554.26
 Uttam Galva Metallics Limited/Lloyds Steels Industry
 Limited...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, 
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to 
instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of 
subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Uttam Galva at the 
subsidy rate listed above in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b).

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 6, 2021.
James Maeder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2021-09943 Filed 5-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P