Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Notices 37785 

12See Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India: Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Changed Circumstances Review,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

13See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

14See 19 CFR 351.303(b). 

1See the domestic producers’ letter, ‘‘Petitions for 

the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 

from the People’s Republic of China, the Republic 

of Korea, India, Italy, and Taiwan,’’ dated June 3, 

2015 (collectively, petitions). 

2See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 

from Italy, India, the People’s Republic of China, 

the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Initiation of 

Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 37228 

(June 30, 2015). 

3See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 

from the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 81 FR 

35303 (June 2, 2016); see also Certain CorrosionResistant Steel Products from India, Italy, Republic 

of Korea and the People’s Republic of China: 

Countervailing Duty Order, 81 FR 48387 (July 25, 

2016); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 

from India, Italy, the People’s Republic of China, 

the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Amended Final 

Affirmative Antidumping Determination for India 

and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 

48390 (July 25, 2016); Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel 

Products from Taiwan: Final Negative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 81 FR 35299 

(June 2, 2016). 

4See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 

from China, India, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan; 

Determinations, 81 FR 47177 (July 20, 2016). 

5See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 

from India, Italy, the People’s Republic of China, 

the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Amended Final 

Affirmative Antidumping Determination for India 

and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 

48390 (July 25, 2016); Certain Corrosion-Resistant 

Steel Products from India, Italy, Republic of Korea 

and the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing 

Duty Order, 81 FR 48387 (July 25, 2016) (Orders). 

6See the domestic producers’ letters, ‘‘Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: 

Request for Circumvention Ruling,’’ dated June 12, 

2018 (Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan); ‘‘Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Request for 

Circumvention Ruling Pursuant to Section 781(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930,’’ dated June 12, 2018 (AntiCircumvention Ruling Request—Korea). 

7See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 22; Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 25. 

information, refer to the accompanying 

successor-in-interest memorandum.12

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may 

submit case briefs not later than 30 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be filed no 

later than five days after the case briefs, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

Parties who submit case or rebuttal 

briefs are encouraged to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of 

authorities.13 All comments are to be 

filed electronically using Enforcement 

and Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS) 

available to registered users at https://

access.trade.gov and in the Central 

Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main 

Department of Commerce building, and 

must also be served on interested 

parties. An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the day it is due.14

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), 

we will issue the final results of this 

changed circumstances review no later 

than 270 days after the date on which 

this review was initiated, or within 45 

days if all parties agree to our 

preliminary finding. This notice is 

published in accordance with sections 

751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.216(b), 351.221(b) and 

351.221(c)(3). 

Dated: July 26, 2018. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive duties and 

functions of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16563 Filed 8–1–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–878; C–580–879; A–583–856] 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel 

Products From the Republic of Korea 

and Taiwan: Initiation of AntiCircumvention Inquiries on the 

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing 

Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor 

Corporation, United States Steel 

Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc. and 

California Steel Industries (collectively, 

the domestic producers), the 

Department of Commerce (Commerce) is 

initiating a country-wide anticircumvention inquiries to determine 

whether imports of certain corrosionresistant steel products (CORE), which 

are completed in the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam (Vietnam) from hot-rolled 

steel (HRS) and/or cold-rolled steel 

(CRS) products (i.e., substrate) produced 

in Taiwan and the Republic of Korea 

(Korea), are circumventing the 

antidumping duty (AD) and 

countervailing duty (CVD) orders on 

CORE from Korea and the AD order on 

CORE from Taiwan. 

DATES: Applicable August 2, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chien-Min Yang (Korea) and Shanah 

Lee (Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, 

Office VII and III, respectively, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5484 

and (202) 482–6386, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 3, 2015, the domestic 

producers filed petitions seeking the 

imposition of antidumping and 

countervailing duties on imports of 

CORE from Korea and Taiwan.1 In 

response to these petitions, Commerce 

initiated AD and CVD investigations on 

June 23, 2015.2 Following Commerce’s 

final affirmative determinations of 

dumping and countervailable 

subsidies,3 and the U.S. International 

Trade Commission (ITC)’s finding of 

material injury,4 Commerce issued AD 

and CVD orders on imports of CORE 

from Korea and an AD order on imports 

of CORE from Taiwan (collectively, 

Orders).5

On June 12, 2018, pursuant to section 

781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 

351.225(h), the domestic producers 

submitted a request for Commerce to 

initiate anti-circumvention inquiries to 

determine whether entities in Vietnam 

are circumventing the Orders by 

exporting, to the United States, CORE 

which is completed or assembled in 

Vietnam using HRS and/or CRS sourced 

from Korea and Taiwan.6 Further, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(f), the 

domestic producers request that 

Commerce initiate anti-circumvention 

inquiries and issue in conjunction with 

initiation of the inquiries a preliminary 

determination of circumvention of the 

Orders to suspend liquidation of 

imports of CORE from Vietnam.7

Scope of the Orders 

The products covered by these orders 

are certain flat-rolled steel products, 

either clad, plated, or coated with 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
37786 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Notices 

8See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request—Korea 

at 3; Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request—Taiwan 

at 22. 

corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, 

aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron-based alloys, whether or not 

corrugated or painted, varnished, 

laminated, or coated with plastics or 

other non-metallic substances in 

addition to the metallic coating. The 

products covered include coils that have 

a width of 12.7 mm or greater, 

regardless of form of coil (e.g., in 

successively superimposed layers, 

spirally oscillating, etc.). The products 

covered also include products not in 

coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a 

thickness less than 4.75 mm and a 

width that is 12.7 mm or greater and 

that measures at least 10 times the 

thickness. The products covered also 

include products not in coils (e.g., in 

straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 

mm or more and a width exceeding 150 

mm and measuring at least twice the 

thickness. The products described above 

may be rectangular, square, circular, or 

other shape and include products of 

either rectangular or non-rectangular 

cross-section where such cross-section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process, i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’ (e.g., products 

which have been beveled or rounded at 

the edges). For purposes of the width 

and thickness requirements referenced 

above: 

(1) Where the nominal and actual 

measurements vary, a product is within 

the scope if application of either the 

nominal or actual measurement would 

place it within the scope based on the 

definitions set forth above, and 

(2) where the width and thickness 

vary for a specific product (e.g., the 

thickness of certain products with nonrectangular cross-section, the width of 

certain products with non-rectangular 

shape, etc.), the measurement at its 

greatest width or thickness applies. 

Steel products included in the scope 

of these orders are products in which: 

(1) Iron predominates, by weight, over 

each of the other contained elements; (2) 

the carbon content is 2 percent or less, 

by weight; and (3) none of the elements 

listed below exceeds the quantity, by 

weight, respectively indicated: 

• 2.50 percent of manganese, or 

• 3.30 percent of silicon, or 

• 1.50 percent of copper, or 

• 1.50 percent of aluminum, or 

• 1.25 percent of chromium, or 

• 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 

• 0.40 percent of lead, or 

• 2.00 percent of nickel, or 

• 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called 

wolfram), or 

• 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or 

• 0.10 percent of niobium (also called 

columbium), or 

• 0.30 percent of vanadium, or 

• 0.30 percent of zirconium 

Unless specifically excluded, 

products are included in this scope 

regardless of levels of boron and 

titanium. 

For example, specifically included in 

this scope are vacuum degassed, fully 

stabilized (commonly referred to as 

interstitial-free (IF)) steels and high 

strength low alloy (HSLA) steels. IF 

steels are recognized as low carbon 

steels with micro-alloying levels of 

elements such as titanium and/or 

niobium added to stabilize carbon and 

nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are 

recognized as steels with micro-alloying 

levels of elements such as chromium, 

copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, 

and molybdenum. 

Furthermore, this scope also includes 

Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) 

and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS), 

both of which are considered high 

tensile strength and high elongation 

steels. 

Subject merchandise also includes 

corrosion-resistant steel that has been 

further processed in a third country, 

including but not limited to annealing, 

tempering, painting, varnishing, 

trimming, cutting, punching and/or 

slitting or any other processing that 

would not otherwise remove the 

merchandise from the scope of the 

orders if performed in the country of 

manufacture of the in-scope corrosion 

resistant steel. 

All products that meet the written 

physical description, and in which the 

chemistry quantities do not exceed any 

one of the noted element levels listed 

above, are within the scope of these 

orders unless specifically excluded. The 

following products are outside of and/ 

or specifically excluded from the scope 

of these orders: 

• Flat-rolled steel products either 

plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both 

chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin 

free steel’’), whether or not painted, 

varnished or coated with plastics or 

other non-metallic substances in 

addition to the metallic coating; 

• Clad products in straight lengths of 

4.7625 mm or more in composite 

thickness and of a width which exceeds 

150 mm and measures at least twice the 

thickness; and 

• Certain clad stainless flat-rolled 

products, which are three-layered 

corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel 

products less than 4.75 mm in 

composite thickness that consist of a 

flat-rolled steel product clad on both 

sides with stainless steel in a 20%– 

60%–20% ratio. 

The products subject to these orders 

are currently classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) under item 

numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 

7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 

7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 

7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000. 

The products subject to these orders 

may also enter under the following 

HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 

7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 

7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 

7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 

7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 

7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 

7229.90.1000. 

The HTSUS subheadings above are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes only. The written description 

of the scope of these orders is 

dispositive. 

Merchandise Subject to the AntiCircumvention Inquiries 

These anti-circumvention inquiries 

cover imports of CORE exported from 

Vietnam manufactured from HRS and/or 

CRS inputs produced in Korea and 

Taiwan. 

The domestic producers request that 

Commerce treat CORE imports from 

Vietnam as subject merchandise under 

the scope of the Orders and impose cash 

deposit requirements for estimated AD 

and CVD duties on all imports of CORE 

from Vietnam.8

Initiation of Anti-Circumvention 

Inquiries 

Section 781(b)(1) of the Act provides 

that Commerce may find circumvention 

of an AD or CVD order when 

merchandise of the same class or kind 

subject to the order is completed or 

assembled in a foreign country other 

than the country to which the order 

applies. In conducting an anticircumvention inquiry, under section 

781(b)(1) of the Act, Commerce relies on 

the following criteria: (A) Merchandise 

imported into the United States is of the 

same class or kind as any merchandise 

produced in a foreign country that is the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Notices 37787 

9See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 8; Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 8. See also sections 781(b)(1)(A)(i) and (iii) 

of the Act. 10See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at Exhibit 4; Anti-Circumvention Ruling 

Request—Korea at Exhibit 1. 

11See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 4–5, 8–9; Anti-Circumvention Ruling 

Request—Korea at 9–10. 

12See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 9–10, Exhibits 5–7; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 9, Exhibit 3. 

13See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 9–10, Exhibits 6–8; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 9, Exhibit 3. 

14See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 8, citing CSVC’s letter, ‘‘Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from China— 

Response to Petitioners’ Circumvention 

Allegations,’’ dated October 20, 2016. 

15See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 8 (citing Certain Corrosion-Resistant 

Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China: 

Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention 

of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 83 FR 23895 (May 23, 2018) (CORE China 

Circumvention Final) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (CORE China 

Circumvention IDM). 

16 . See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 10–11, Exhibit 9; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 8–10, Exhibits 2, 4. 

17See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 10. 

18See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 8–9; Exhibit 2. 

19See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 9–11, Exhibit 1; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 24, Exhibit 2. 

20See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 11; Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 11–14. 

21See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 11–12, Exhibits 9–18; AntiCircumvention Ruling Request—Korea at 11–14, 

Exhibits 9–11. 

22See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 11–12, Exhibits 9–18; AntiCircumvention Ruling Request—Korea at 11–14, 

Exhibits 9–11. 

subject of an antidumping or 

countervailing duty order or finding; (B) 

before importation into the United 

States, such imported merchandise is 

completed or assembled in another 

foreign country from merchandise 

which is subject to the order or 

merchandise which is produced in the 

foreign country that is subject to the 

order; (C) the process of assembly or 

completion in the foreign country 

referred to in section (B) is minor or 

insignificant; (D) the value of the 

merchandise produced in the foreign 

country to which the AD or CVD order 

applies is a significant portion of the 

total value of the merchandise exported 

to the United States; and (E) the 

administering authority determines that 

action is appropriate to prevent evasion 

of such order or finding. As discussed 

below, domestic producers provided 

evidence with respect to these criteria. 

A. Merchandise of the Same Class or 

Kind 

The domestic producers claim that 

CORE exported to the United States is 

the same class or kind as that covered 

by the Orders in these inquiries.9 The 

domestic producers provided evidence 

to show that the merchandise from 

Vietnam enters the United States under 

the same tariff classification as subject 

merchandise.10

B. Completion of Merchandise in a 

Foreign Country 

The domestic producers presented 

evidence demonstrating how CORE in 

Vietnam is produced from HRS or CRS 

produced and imported from Taiwan 

and Korea.11 Further, the domestic 

producers provided evidence that 

Vietnam had no capacity to produce 

hot-rolled steel until very recently, May 

2017.12 The domestic producers claim 

that this mill is ‘‘still in the ramp-up 

phase,’’ and thus, ‘‘most CORE that is 

produced in Vietnam must still be made 

from imported substrate.’’ 13

Regarding Taiwan, the domestic 

producers note that China Sumikin 

Vietnam (CSVC), one of Vietnam’s 

principle manufacturers and exporters 

of CORE, stated in a response to 

Commerce in the previously completed 

anti-circumvention inquiry with regard 

to Chinese substrate finished in Vietnam 

that it ‘‘produces its CORE only with 

hot-rolled steel from Japan and 

Taiwan.’’ 14 The domestic producers 

assert that Commerce’s recent 

affirmative decision in CORE China 

Circumvention Final that Chinese HRS 

and CRS are used to produce CORE in 

Vietnam provides more incentive for 

Vietnamese CORE producers to shift to 

Taiwanese-produced inputs.15

As discussed above, the domestic 

producers assert that because Vietnam 

has little capacity to produce HRS 

domestically, Vietnamese CORE 

producers rely heavily on HRS imports. 

In support of this assertion, the 

domestic producers presented evidence 

showing increasing and substantial 

imports of Korean and Taiwanese HRS 

into Vietnam between 2015 and 2017.16

Specifically, the domestic producers 

contend that the surge in imports of 

HRS from Taiwan is evidence that, as 

Commerce began its anti-circumvention 

investigation of Vietnamese CORE 

produced from Chinese substrate, 

Taiwanese steel producers stepped in to 

fill that gap.17

As to the imports of HRS and CRS to 

Vietnam from Korea, the domestic 

producers provided information 

showing those shipments increased 

from 879,537 tons in 2014 to nearly 1.1 

million tons in 2015, continued to grow 

in 2016, and remained substantial in 

2017.18 Additionally, the domestic 

producers also provided information 

demonstrating that imports into the 

United States of CORE from Korea and 

Taiwan significantly decreased after the 

imposition of the Orders. 

Simultaneously, the domestic producers 

provided information demonstrating 

that imports into the United States of 

CORE from Vietnam increased more 

than ten-fold between 2015 and 2016.19

C. Minor or Insignificant Process 

The domestic producers maintain that 

the process for completing CORE from 

HRS and CRS is minor or insignificant. 

Under section 781(b)(2) of the Act, 

Commerce considers five factors to 

determine whether the process of 

assembly or completion in the foreign 

country is minor or insignificant: (A) 

The level of investment in the foreign 

country in which the merchandise is 

completed or assembled; (B) the level of 

research and development in the foreign 

country in which the merchandise is 

completed or assembled; (C) the nature 

of the production process in the foreign 

country in which the merchandise is 

completed or assembled; (D) the extent 

of production facilities in the foreign 

country in which the merchandise is 

completed or assembled, and (E) 

whether the value of the processing 

performed in the foreign country in 

which the merchandise is completed or 

assembled represents a small proportion 

of the value of the merchandise 

imported into the United States. 

(1) Level of Investment 

The domestic producers contend that 

the level of investment necessary to 

complete CORE in Vietnam is less than 

the level of investment required to 

construct a factory that can produce 

HRS and CRS in Korea and Taiwan.20 In 

support of their contention, the 

domestic producers compared the 

investment necessary to install a coldrolling and coating facility with the 

investment necessary to produce HRS 

using a fully-integrated production 

process for melting iron and casting 

steel.21 The domestic producers rely on 

Commerce’s level of investment 

findings in CORE China Circumvention 

Final, which found that Vietnamese 

CORE that uses Chinese substrate 

circumvents the Chinese CORE order.22

In that proceeding, Commerce pointed 

to record evidence showing the cost to 

build an integrated steel mill in China 

to produce HRS was in the range of 250 

million to 10 billion U.S. dollars (USD) 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
37788 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Notices 

23See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 12–13, citing Certain Corrosion-Resistant 

Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China: 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination of AntiCircumvention Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty 

and Countervailing Duty Orders, 82 FR 58170 

(December 11, 2017) (CORE China Circumvention 

Prelim) and accompanying Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum (CORE China Circumvention PDM) at 

17; see also CORE China Circumvention IDM at 32. 

24See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 13, Exhibits 10, 12, and 13. 25 Id. 26See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 14, Exhibits 14, 15; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 11–14, Exhibits 9–11. 27See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 13–14, Exhibits 8–11. 28See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 14 Exhibit 16. 29See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 14, Exhibits 9–11. 

30See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 14. 

31 Id. at 15, citing CORE China Anticircumvention 

PDM at 19. 

32See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 15–16, Exhibits 5, 8, 14; AntiCircumvention Ruling Request—Korea at 14–16 and 

Exhibits 10, 12–15. 

33See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 15, Exhibit 14; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 14–16, Exhibits 10, 12– 

15. The domestic producers cited several other 

examples, including CSVC, Hoa Phat Group (HPG) 

and Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel Corporation 

(TISCO). 

34See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 15, Exhibit 14; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 14–16, Exhibits 10, 12– 

15. 

35See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at Exhibit 4; Anti-Circumvention Ruling 

Request—Korea at 15 and Exhibit 13. 

36See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at Exhibit 5. 

37 Id. at 16, Exhibits 15,16. 

38See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 15–16, Exhibit 15. 

39See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 16–18; Anti-Circumvention Ruling 

Request—Korea at 16–21. 

40See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 17; see also CORE China Circumvention 

IDM at 20–21. 

41See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 17. 

42 Id. 

43See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 17–18 (Taiwan); Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 17–20. 

44See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 18 and Exhibit 21. 

and that the cost to build a cold-rolling 

mill in Vietnam to produce CRS from 

HRS substrate was as low as 28 million 

USD.23 Regarding Taiwan, the domestic 

producers also rely on Commerce’s 

findings in CORE China Circumvention 

Final to explain that the cost of building 

a basic steel mill in Taiwan is as great 

as China, or much larger given Taiwan’s 

higher level of development and GDP.24

Specifically, the domestic producers 

explain that the property, plant, and 

equipment of China Steel Corporation 

(CSC), a Taiwanese steel manufacturer 

that owns 56 percent of Vietnamese 

CORE producer, CSVC, was valued at 

$14 billion USD at the end of 2014.25

Conversely, the domestic producers 

provide evidence to demonstrate that a 

smaller level of investment, ranging 

from $70 million to $1.15 billion USD, 

is needed to build a coating mill in 

Vietnam.26 Relying on the cost of 

building an integrated steel mill in 

Korea—for example, Hyundai Steel 

invested 5 billion USD in 2010 for its 

integrated steel mill—the domestic 

producers claim that the level of 

investment required in Vietnam to 

complete the production of CORE by 

rolling and coating is far less than the 

investment required to establish an 

integrated mill to produce the hot-rolled 

steel substrate.27

Finally, the domestic producers 

provide evidence that the cost of 

building a coated steel sheet factory in 

Vietnam was a fraction of the amount of 

investment needed to build a basic steel 

mill.28 The domestic producers 

therefore conclude that in comparison 

to the level of investment necessary to 

build an integrated steel mill in Korea 

and Taiwan, the level of investment to 

build a cold-rolling mill in Vietnam is 

insignificant.29

(2) Level of Research and Development 

The domestic producers assert that 

the level of research and development 

(R&D) needed to produce steel substrate, 

such as HRS, is greater than the R&D 

specifically needed to produce CORE 

from the substrate.30 The domestic 

producers cite to Commerce’s findings 

in CORE China Circumvention Prelim, 

where Commerce found that the 

evidence provided by Vietnamese CORE 

producers ‘‘did not support their claims 

that their R&D programs and level of 

expenditures are significant.’’ 31 The 

domestic producers contend that, rather 

than developing its own technology, the 

Vietnamese steel industry uses 

technology developed abroad.32 As an 

example of Vietnamese producers using 

technology developed abroad, the 

domestic producers provided evidence 

that Vietnamese producer Ton Dong A 

Corp installed European and Japanese 

equipment in its new CORE facility.33

Furthermore, the domestic producers 

explain that CSVC, the sole mill in 

Vietnam with galvanneal (the process of 

galvanizing followed by annealing) 

capability needed for auto and 

appliance use, is a joint venture 

between Taiwanese and Japanese parent 

companies.34 The domestic producers 

provide various evidence to support the 

contention that steel mills in Vietnam 

relied on foreign technology and cheap 

domestic labor.35 Moreover, the 

domestic producers contend that, 

because there is greater focus in 

producing products for building 

construction in Vietnam, there is little 

incentive for Vietnamese CORE 

producers to invest in R&D for more 

advanced products.36 In contrast, the 

domestic producers point to global R&D 

efforts on behalf of CSC, the largest steel 

company in Taiwan, including 

employing highly-skilled researchers 

and collaborating with Taiwan’s leading 

universities.37 Similarly, the domestic 

producers compare the R&D 

expenditures of POSCO Korea, the 

largest steel producer in Korea, and 

suggest that the level of R&D in Vietnam 

for CORE production is minimal to nonexistent.38

(3) Nature of Production Process 

According to the domestic producers, 

the completion process undertaken by 

Vietnamese producers of CORE is less 

complex and significant than 

manufacturing the steel substrate in 

Taiwan and Korea.39 Citing Commerce’s 

finding in CORE China Circumvention 

Final, the domestic producers contend 

that while the process of galvanizing 

steel is not trivial, it is insignificant 

compared to the greater steel-making 

processes that include smelting iron, 

making, casting, and hot-rolling steel.40

The galvanizing process is the end of 

the production line, and it adds a small 

part of the total value, requires little 

capital and a small proportion of input 

by weight and volume.41 Thus, the 

domestic producers explain that even 

relatively sophisticated galvanizing 

operations will involve less intensive 

processing than processing steel 

substrate.42

(4) Extent of Production Facilities in 

Vietnam 

Moreover, the domestic producers 

contend that more capital is required to 

build an integrated steel mill that 

includes blast furnace, casting, and hot 

rolling, as compared to building a coldrolling and coating facility.43 A larger 

amount of capital also represent larger 

production facilities, more equipment 

and workers. As an example, the 

domestic producers explain that CSVC 

employs 800 employees in Vietnam 

whereas its Taiwanese parent, CSC, has 

7949 employees.44

(5) Value of Processing in Vietnam 

The domestic producers point to 

Commerce’s finding in CORE China 

Circumvention Prelim to contend that 

‘‘the value of the materials, labor, 

energy, overhead, and other items 

consumed in the production of CORE 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Notices 37789 

45 Id. at 18, citing CORE China Circumvention 

PDM at 21. 

46See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 19, citing CORE China Circumvention 

PDM at 22 and CORE China Circumvention IDM at 

23; Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request—Korea at 

21–22, citing CORE China Circumvention IDM at 9 

and CORE China Circumvention PDM at 21. 

47See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 20 and Exhibit 8; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 22–24, Exhibits 14, 17. 

48See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 21; Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 24. 

49See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 20, Exhibit 1; Anti-Circumvention Ruling 

Request—Korea at 23–24. 

50See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 20, Exhibit 1; Anti-Circumvention Ruling 

Request—Korea at 23–24. 

51See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 21; Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 24, Exhibit 2. 

52See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 21; Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 24, Exhibit 2. 

53See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 21; Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 24, Exhibit 2. 

54See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 21; Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 24, Exhibit 2. 

55See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 24–25. 

56See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 8–10, Exhibit 4; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 8, Exhibit 1. 

57See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 20–21, Exhibits 1, 4, 9; AntiCircumvention Ruling Request—Korea at 8–10, 

Exhibits 2–4. 

58See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 11–14; Anti-Circumvention Ruling 

Request—Korea at 10–11. 

59See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 14–16; Anti-Circumvention Ruling 

Request—Korea at 14–16. 

60See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 16–18; Anti-Circumvention Ruling 

Request—Korea at 16–21. 

61See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 18–21; Anti-Circumvention Ruling 

Request—Korea at 21–24. 

represents an insignificant value when 

compared to the value of the 

merchandise sold to the United 

States.’’ 45 Moreover, the domestic 

producers maintain that Commerce’s 

quantitative and qualitative finding that 

the finishing process in Vietnam adds 

only a small part of the total value of the 

CORE exported to the United States 

applies to Korean and Taiwanese 

substrate.46 As the Korean and 

Taiwanese steel industries have more 

sophisticated and advanced technology 

than those in either China and Vietnam, 

the domestic producers assert that the 

percentage of value added in Vietnam to 

Taiwanese and Korean substrate is 

likely to be lower than it was in CORE 

China Circumvention Final.47 Based on 

these assertions, the domestic producers 

contend that every statutory factor that 

Commerce has considered in making its 

affirmative finding in CORE China 

Circumvention Final similarly applies to 

both Korea and Taiwan.48

Additionally, the domestic producers 

cite the recent ITC investigation of 

CORE from China, India, Italy, Korea 

and Taiwan, stating that the information 

contained therein demonstrates that the 

cost of Taiwanese and Korean HRS 

inputs accounts for 69 to 79 percent of 

the price of CORE.49 Additionally, the 

domestic producers explain that the 

price of Taiwanese and Korean CRS 

inputs accounts for 84 to 90 percent of 

the price of CORE.50

D. Additional Factors To Consider in 

Determining Whether Action Is 

Necessary 

Section 781(b)(3) of the Act directs 

Commerce to consider additional factors 

in determining whether to include 

merchandise assembled or completed in 

a foreign country within the scope of the 

order, such as: ‘‘(A) The pattern of trade, 

including sourcing patterns, (B) whether 

the manufacturer or exporter of the 

merchandise . . . is affiliated with the 

person who uses the merchandise . . . 

to assemble or complete in the foreign 

country the merchandise that is 

subsequently imported into the United 

States, and (C) whether imports into the 

foreign country of the merchandise . . . 

have increased after the initiation of the 

investigation which resulted in the 

issuance of such order or finding.’’ 

Regarding patterns of trade, the 

domestic producers contend that 

exports of CORE from Vietnam to the 

United States skyrocketed as exports 

from Korea and Taiwan declined in the 

period after the filing of the petition in 

the underlying investigations, as 

compared to the period before it.51 The 

domestic producers further explain that 

while recently exports of CORE from 

Vietnam to the United States have 

declined slightly, this decline is largely 

due to Commerce’s investigation of 

circumvention of the AD and CVD 

orders on CORE the China.52 The 

domestic producers also point to the 

fact that exports of HRS from Korea and 

Taiwan to Vietnam also increased after 

the underlying investigations 

commenced.53 Finally, regarding 

affiliation, the domestic producers point 

out that major Vietnamese CORE 

producer CVSC is majority-owned by 

Taiwan’s largest steel manufacturer, 

CSC.54 Similarly, the domestic 

producers assert that Korea’s largest 

steel manufacturer POSCO has 13 

Vietnamese affiliates and offices, 

including POSCO VIETNAM, and has 

the capacity to produce 700,000 tons of 

cold-rolled steel.55

Analysis of the Allegations 

Based on our analysis of the domestic 

producer’s anti-circumvention 

allegations and the information 

provided therein, Commerce determines 

that anti-circumvention inquiries of the 

AD and CVD orders on CORE from 

Korea and Taiwan are warranted. 

With regard to whether the 

merchandise from Vietnam is of the 

same class or kind as the merchandise 

produced in Korea and Taiwan, the 

domestic producers presented 

information to Commerce indicating 

that, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act, the merchandise being 

produced in and/or exported from 

Vietnam is of the same class or kind as 

CORE produced in Korea and Taiwan, 

which is subject to the Orders.56

Consequently, Commerce finds that the 

domestic producers provided sufficient 

information in their requests regarding 

the class or kind of merchandise to 

support the initiation of these anticircumvention inquiries. 

With regard to completion or 

assembly of merchandise in a foreign 

country, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(B) 

of the Act, the domestic producers also 

presented information to Commerce 

indicating that the CORE exported from 

Vietnam to the United States is 

produced in Vietnam using HRS and 

CRS from Korea and Taiwan.57 We find 

that the information presented by the 

domestic producers regarding this 

criterion supports its request to initiate 

these anti-circumvention inquiries. 

Commerce finds that the domestic 

producers sufficiently addressed the 

factors described in sections 

781(b)(1)(C) and 781(b)(2) of the Act 

regarding whether the process of 

assembly or completion of CORE in 

Vietnam is minor or insignificant. In 

particular, information in the domestic 

producers’ submission indicates that: (1) 

The level of investment in coating 

facilities is minimal when compared 

with the level of investment for basic 

steel making facilities; 58 (2) there is 

little or no research and development 

taking place in Vietnam; 59 (3) the CORE 

production processes involve the simple 

processing of HRS or CRS from a 

country subject to the Orders, (4) the 

CORE production facilities in Vietnam 

are more limited compared to HRS 

facilities in Korea and Taiwan; 60 and (5) 

the value of the processing performed in 

Vietnam is a small proportion of the 

value of the CORE imported into the 

United States.61

With respect to the value of the 

merchandise produced in Korea and 

Taiwan, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(D) 

of the Act, the domestic producers 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
37790 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Notices 

62See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at Exhibits 1, 4, and 9; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at Exhibits 14, 17. 

63See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 9–10, Exhibit 4; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 24 and Exhibit 2. 

64See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan. at 10–11, Exhibit 9; Anti-Circumvention 

Ruling Request—Korea at 24, Exhibit 2. 

65See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Korea at 24–25, Exhibit 19. 

66See Anti-Circumvention Ruling Request— 

Taiwan at 11, Exhibit 10. 

relied on published sources, 

Commerce’s prior conclusions in CORE 

China Circumvention Final, and 

information presented in the ‘‘minor or 

insignificant process’’ portion of their 

anti-circumvention allegations to 

indicate that the value of the substrate 

(HRS and CRS manufactured in Korea 

and Taiwan) is a significant portion of 

the total value of the CORE exported 

from Vietnam to the United States.62 We 

find that this information adequately 

meets the requirements of this factor, as 

discussed above, for the purposes of 

initiating these anti-circumvention 

inquiries. 

Finally, with respect to the additional 

factors listed under section 781(b)(3) of 

the Act, we find that the domestic 

producers presented evidence 

indicating that shipments of CORE from 

Vietnam to the United States increased 

since the imposition of the Orders 63 and 

that shipments of HRS from Korea and 

Taiwan to Vietnam also increased since 

the Orders took effect.64 Furthermore, 

we find that the domestic producers 

have presented evidence that the largest 

Korean manufacturer of CRS (POSCO) is 

affiliated with a company in Vietnam 

that completes the merchandise.65 We 

also find that the domestic producers 

provided sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that a Taiwanese steel 

manufacturer, CSC, owns 56 percent of 

Vietnamese CORE producer, CSVC.66

Accordingly, we are initiating formal 

anti-circumvention inquiries concerning 

the AD and CVD orders on CORE from 

Korea and the AD order on CORE from 

Taiwan, pursuant to section 781(b) of 

the Act. 

As these inquiries are initiated on a 

country-wide basis (i.e., not exclusive to 

the producers mentioned immediately 

above), Commerce intends to issue 

questionnaires to solicit information 

from the Vietnamese producers and 

exporters concerning their shipments of 

CORE to the United States and the 

origin of any imported HRS and CRS 

being processed into CORE. A 

company’s failure to respond 

completely to Commerce’s requests for 

information may result in the 

application of partial or total facts 

available, pursuant to section 776(a) of 

the Act, which may include adverse 

inferences, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act. 

While we believe sufficient factual 

information has been submitted by the 

domestic producers supporting their 

request for inquiries, we do not find that 

the record supports the simultaneous 

issuance of a preliminary ruling. Such 

inquiries are by their nature typically 

complicated and can require 

information regarding production in 

both the country subject to the order 

and the third country completing the 

product. As noted above, Commerce 

intends to request additional 

information regarding the statutory 

criteria to determine whether shipments 

of CORE from Vietnam are 

circumventing the AD and CVD orders 

on CORE from Korea and the AD order 

on CORE from Taiwan. Thus, with 

further development of the record 

required before a preliminary ruling can 

be issued, Commerce does not find it 

appropriate to issue a preliminary ruling 

at this time. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.225(e), Commerce finds that the 

issue of whether a product is included 

within the scope of an order cannot be 

determined based solely upon the 

application and the descriptions of the 

merchandise. Accordingly, Commerce 

will notify by mail all parties on 

Commerce’s scope service list of the 

initiation of these anti-circumvention 

inquiries. In addition, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1)(i) and (ii), in 

this notice of initiation issued under 19 

CFR 351.225(e), we have included a 

description of the product that is the 

subject of these anti-circumvention 

inquiries (i.e., CORE that contains the 

characteristics as provided in the scope 

of the Orders) and an explanation of the 

reasons for Commerce’s decision to 

initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry, 

as provided above. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.225(l)(2), if Commerce issues a 

preliminary affirmative determination, 

we will then instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection to suspend 

liquidation and require a cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping and 

countervailing duties, at the applicable 

rate, for each unliquidated entry of the 

merchandise at issue, entered or 

withdrawn from warehouse for 

consumption on or after the date of 

initiation of the inquiry. Commerce will 

establish a schedule for questionnaires 

and comments on the issues. In 

accordance with section 781(f) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f)(5), 

Commerce intends to issue its final 

determination within 300 days of the 

date of publication of this initiation. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f). 

Dated: July 27, 2018. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16565 Filed 8–1–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–881, C–580–882] 

Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products 

From the Republic of Korea: Initiation 

of Anti-Circumvention Inquiries on the 

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing 

Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor 

Corporation, United States Steel 

Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc. and 

California Steel Industries (collectively, 

the domestic producers), the 

Department of Commerce (Commerce) is 

initiating a country-wide anticircumvention inquiries to determine 

whether imports of certain cold-rolled 

steel flat products (CRS), which are 

completed in the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (Vietnam) from hot-rolled steel 

(HRS) produced in the Republic of 

Korea (Korea), are circumventing the 

antidumping duty (AD) and 

countervailing duty (CVD) orders on 

CRS from Korea. 

DATES: Applicable August 2, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tyler Weinhold or Fred Baker, 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) 482–1121 or (202) 482–2924, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 28, 2015, AK Steel 

Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, 

Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, 

Inc., and the United States Steel 

Corporation (the domestic producers) 

filed petitions seeking the imposition of 

antidumping and countervailing duties 

on imports of CRS from Brazil, the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES