Organic Soybean Meal From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 16453-16455 [2022-06155]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16453-16455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06155]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / 
Notices

[[Page 16453]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-902]


Organic Soybean Meal From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that 
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters 
of organic soybean meal from India.

DATES: Applicable March 23, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chien-Min Yang, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 3, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register.\1\ In the Preliminary 
Determination, and in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce 
aligned the final determination of this CVD investigation with the 
final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of 
organic soybean meal from India. On December 8, 2021, Commerce released 
its Post-Preliminary Analysis.\2\ For a complete description of the 
events that followed the Preliminary Determination and Post-Preliminary 
Analysis, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\3\ 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. In addition, a complete 
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly 
at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Organic Soybean Meal from India: Preliminary Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final 
Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 86 FR 49514 
(September 3, 2021) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum 
(PDM).
    \2\ See Memorandum, ``Post-Preliminary Analysis Memorandum,'' 
dated December 8, 2021.
    \3\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decisions Memorandum for the 
Final Affirmative Determination of the Countervailing Duty 
Investigation of Organic Soybean Meal from India,'' dated 
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is January 1, 2020, through December 
31, 2020.

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is organic soybean meal 
from India. For a complete description of the scope of this 
investigation, see Appendix I.

Scope Comments

    During the course of this investigation, Commerce did not receive 
scope comments from any interested parties. Thus, Commerce is not 
modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Preliminary 
Determination. See Appendix I for the final scope of the investigation.

Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in 
the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation, are 
discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the 
issues raised by parties, and to which we responded in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, see Appendix II of this notice.

Methodology

    Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 
701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, 
Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial 
contribution by an ``authority'' that gives rise to a benefit to the 
recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.\4\ For a full description 
of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding 
financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding 
benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making this final determination, Commerce relied, in part, on 
the facts otherwise available on the record pursuant to section 776(a) 
of the Act. Additionally, as discussed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, because the Government of India and various producers or 
exporters of subject merchandise did not act to the best of their 
abilities in responding to our requests for information, we drew 
adverse inferences, where appropriate, in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. For 
further information, see the section ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available 
and Adverse Inferences'' in the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.

Verification

    Commerce was unable to conduct on-site verification of the 
information relied upon in making its final determination in this 
investigation. However, we took additional steps in lieu of on-site 
verification to verify the information relied upon in making this final 
determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation 
of Organic Soybean Meal From India: In Lieu of On-Site Verification 
Questionnaire,'' dated December 15, 2021; see also Bergwerff's 
Letter, ``Organic Soybean Meal From India: In Lieu of Onsite 
Verification Questionnaire Response,'' dated December 22, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from 
parties, we made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculations for 
Bergwerff Organic India Private Limited (Bergwerff), All Others rate 
and the calculation of AFA rates. For a discussion of these changes, 
see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All-Others Rate

    In this investigation, the only individually calculated rate that 
is not

[[Page 16454]]

zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the 
rate calculated for Bergwerff. Consequently, the rate calculated for 
Bergwerff is also assigned as the rate for all other producers and 
exporters not individually examined in this investigation.

Final Determination

    Commerce determines the total estimated net countervailable subsidy 
rates to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Subsidy rate
                         Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bergwerff Organic India Private Limited \6\.............            9.57
Shanti Worldwide........................................          283.91
Shri Sumati Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.....................          283.91
Navjyot International Pvt. Ltd..........................          283.91
Ish Agritech Pvt. Ltd \7\...............................          283.91
Satguru Organics Pvt. Ltd \8\...........................          283.91
Radiance Overseas \9\...................................          283.91
Swastik Enterprises \10\................................          283.91
Soni Soya Products Limited \11\.........................          283.91
Raj Foods International \12\............................          283.91
Vantage Organic Foods Pvt. Ltd \13\.....................          283.91
Shree Bhagwati Oil Mill \14\............................          283.91
Pragati Organics \15\...................................          283.91
All Others..............................................            9.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \6\ As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 
Commerce has found the following company to be cross-owned with 
Bergwerff: Suminter India Organics Private Limited.
    \7\ See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at section VII, ``Use of 
Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.''
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations 
and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of 
its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within 
five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.224(b).

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to 
sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce instructed U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries 
of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation 
section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after September 3, 2021, the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 
703(d) of the Act, effective January 1, 2022, we instructed CBP to 
discontinue the suspension of liquidation of all entries at that time, 
but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from 
September 3, 2021, through December 31, 2021.
    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final 
affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and require 
a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of 
subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, in accordance with 
section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury, 
or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be 
terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as 
a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify 
the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable 
subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of organic 
soybean meal from India. As Commerce's final determination is 
affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will 
determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United 
States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury. In 
addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and 
nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow 
the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information 
in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such 
information, either publicly or under an administrative protective 
order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance.

Notification Regarding APO

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury 
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties 
subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction 
of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 terms 
of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
705(d) and 771(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: March 17, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to the investigation is certified 
organic soybean meal. Certified organic soybean meal results from 
the mechanical pressing of certified organic soybeans into ground 
products known as soybean cake, soybean chips, or soybean flakes, 
with or without oil residues. Soybean cake is the product after the 
extraction of part of the oil from soybeans. Soybean chips and 
soybean flakes are produced by cracking, heating, and flaking 
soybeans and reducing the oil content of the conditioned product. 
``Certified organic soybean meal'' is certified by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) or 
equivalently certified to NOP standards or NOP-equivalent

[[Page 16455]]

standards under an existing organic equivalency or recognition 
agreement.
    Certified organic soybean meal subject to this investigation has 
a protein content of 34 percent or higher.
    Organic soybean meal that is otherwise subject to this 
investigation is included when incorporated in admixtures, including 
but not limited to prepared animal feeds. Only the organic soybean 
meal component of such admixture is covered by the scope of this 
investigation.
    The products covered by this investigation are currently 
classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 1208.10.0010 and 2304.00.0000. 
Certified organic soybean meal may also enter under HTSUS 
2309.90.1005, 2309.90.1015, 2309.90.1020, 2309.90.1030, 
2309.90.1032, 2309.90.1035, 2309.90.1045, 2309.90.1050, and 
2308.00.9890.
    The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the 
scope is dispositive.

Appendix II

List of Topics Discussed in the Decision Memorandum:

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Investigation
IV. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences: Non-
Cooperative and Non-Responsive Companies
V. Subsidies Valuation
VI. Analysis of Programs
VII. Analysis of Comments
    Comment 1: Whether Bergwerff Failed to Identify an Affiliated 
Supplier
    Comment 2: Whether Commerce Should Apply Adverse Facts Available 
(AFA) to Bergwerff for Failing to Report Use of an Export Promotion 
Scheme
    Comment 3: Whether Commerce Should Countervail the Duty Drawback 
Benefits Received by Bergwerff for Organic Soybeans
    Comment 4: Whether Commerce Should Have Selected Additional 
Respondents for Individual Examination in this Investigation
    Comment 5: Whether Commerce Should Apply Total AFA to Shanti 
Overseas (India) Ltd.
    Comment 6: Whether Commerce Should Recalculate the Benefits 
Received Under the Duty-Free Importation of Capital Goods and Raw 
Materials, Components, Consumables, Intermediates, Spare Parts and 
Packing Material, and Exemption from Central Sales Tax (CST) on 
Purchases of Capital Goods and Raw Materials, Components, 
Consumables, Intermediates, Spare Parts, and Packing Material
    Comment 7: Whether Commerce Should Countervail the Exemption 
from Payment of Central Sales Tax (CST) on Purchases of Capital 
Goods and Raw Materials, Components, Consumables, Intermediates, 
Spare Parts and Packing Materials
    Comment 8: Whether Commerce Should Recalculate the Benefits 
Received Under the Merchandise Export Incentive Scheme (MEIS) 
Program
    Comment 9: Whether Commerce Should Countervail the Pre-Shipment 
and Post-Shipment Export Financing Program
    Comment 10: Whether Commerce Assigned the AFA Rate Twice for the 
SGMP Exemption from Electricity Duty and Cess on Electricity 
Supplied to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Unit Program
    Comment 11: Whether Commerce Should Countervail the Advance 
Authorization Program (AAP) and the Duty Drawback (DDB) Program
    Comment 12: Whether Commerce Should Apply AFA to the Non-
Cooperative Mandatory Respondents that Withdrew from Participation 
in the Investigation
    Comment 13: Whether Commerce Should Apply AFA to the Government 
of India (GOI)
    Comment 14: Whether Commerce Correctly Initiated the 
Transportation and Marketing Assistance (TMA) for Special 
Agriculture Products
VIII. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2022-06155 Filed 3-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P