Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39667 

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), as amended by Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the 

Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in 

Harmony with Final Determination of Investigation 

and Notice of Amended Final Results, issued July 

23, 2018. 

6See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

7See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 

8See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). 

9See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

10See 19 CFR 351.303. 

11See 19 CFR 351.310(c); 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1). 

12See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

13See Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously investigated companies not 

participating in this review, the cash 

deposit will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding in which the company 

participated; (3) if the exporter is not a 

firm covered in this review, or the 

underlying investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent segment for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will continue to be 8.32 

percent, the all-others rate established 

in the underlying investigation.5 These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

Commerce intends to disclose the 

calculations performed in connection 

with these preliminary results to 

interested parties within five days after 

the date of publication of this notice.6

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

not later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice.7 Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed no later than 

five days after the time limit for filing 

case briefs.8 Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding 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.9

Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed 

using ACCESS.10

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing must submit a written request to 

the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance, filed electronically via 

ACCESS. An electronically-filed request 

for a hearing must be received 

successfully in its entirety by ACCESS 

by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice.11 Hearing requests should 

contain: (1) The party’s name, address, 

and telephone number; (2) the number 

of participants; and (3) a list of issues to 

be discussed. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to issues raised 

in the briefs. If a request for a hearing 

is made, parties will be notified of the 

time and date for the hearing to be held 

at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20230.12

Commerce intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any written briefs, not 

later than 120 days after the publication 

of these preliminary results in the 

Federal Register, unless otherwise 

extended.13

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in Commerce’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 3, 2018. 

James Maeder, 

Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations performing the duties of Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Period of Review 

IV. Scope of the Order 

V. Particular Market Situation 

VI. Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts 

Available 

A. Legal Authority 

B. Application of Facts Available to 

Hyundai 

C. Application of Facts Available with an 

Adverse Inference 

D. Selection and Corroboration of Adverse 

Facts Available Rate 

VII. Review-Specific Average Rate for NonExamined Companies 

VIII. Discussion of the Methodology 

A. Normal Value Comparisons 

1. Determination of Comparison Method 

2. Results of the Differential Pricing 

Analysis 

B. Date of Sale 

C. Product Comparisons 

D. Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

E. Normal Value 

1. Home Market Viability 

2. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm’sLength Test 

3. Level of Trade 

4. Overrun Sales 

5. Cost of Production Analysis 

6. Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Home Market Prices 

7. Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Constructed Value 

IX. Currency Conversion 

X. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2018–17155 Filed 8–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–824] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From India: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2016–2017 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 

and strip (PET film) from India. The 

period of review (POR) is July 1, 2016, 

through June 30, 2017. This review 

covers mandatory respondents Jindal 

Poly Films Ltd. (India) and SRF Limited 

of India, producers and exporters of PET 

film from India. Commerce 

preliminarily determines that sales of 

subject merchandise have been made 

below normal value by Jindal Poly 

Films Ltd. (India), and that sales of 

subject merchandise have not been 

made below normal value by SRF 

Limited of India during the POR. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Applicable August 10, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Arrowsmith, 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) 482–5255. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39668 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to 

Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 30833 (July 

3, 2017). 

2See the Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) 

from India, Request for Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review,’’ dated July 31, 2017. See 

also the Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) 

from India, Amended Request for Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated August 11, 

2017. See also the Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) 

from India, Amended Request for Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated August 30, 

2017; see also Polyplex USA LLC’s Letter, 

‘‘Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

(PET Film) from India: Request for Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated July 28, 2017. 

See also Polyplex’s Letter, ‘‘Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) 

from India: Request for Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review,’’ dated August 29, 2017; see 

also SRF Limited’s Letter, ‘‘Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, (PET Film) from India/Request 

for Antidumping Admin Review/SRF Limited,’’ 

dated July 31, 2017; see also Jindal’s Letter, 

‘‘Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, (PET Film) from 

India/Request for Antidumping Admin Review/ 

Jindal Poly Films Limited,’’ dated July 27, 2017; see 

also Chiripal’s Letter, ‘‘Polyethylene Terephthalate 

(PET) Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Request for 

Administrative Review of Anti-Dumping Duty of 

Chiripal Poly Films Limited,’’ dated July 31, 2017. 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 

42974 (September 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 

4See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET) Film 

from India: U.S. Customs Entries,’’ dated September 

27, 2017. 

5See Memorandum, ‘‘Administrative Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: 

Selection of Respondents for Individual 

Examination,’’ dated November 20, 2017 

(Respondent Selection Memorandum). SRF Limited 

of India and SRF limited are the same company. See 

Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from India; 2016–2017,’’ dated concurrently with, 

and hereby adopted, by this notice (Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum) at 2–3. 

6See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 

7See Memorandum, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the 

Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated 

January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by three days. 

8See Memorandum ‘‘Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Extension of 

Deadline for Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review (2016–2017),’’ dated 

March 22, 2018. 

9See Memorandum, ‘‘Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film from Taiwan: Extension of Deadline for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review (2016–2017),’’ dated June 1, 

2018. 

10See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 

42974 (September 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 

11See Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 3, 2017, Commerce published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on PET film from India, for the period 

July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.1 In 

accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) 

and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), in July 2017, 

we received requests for reviews of the 

following companies: Chiripal Poly 

Films Limited (Chiripal); Ester 

Industries Limited (Ester); Garware 

Polyester Ltd. (Garware); MTZ 

Polyesters Ltd. (MTZ); Polyplex 

Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex); SRF 

Limited; SRF Limited of India; Jindal 

Poly Films Ltd. (India); Uflex Ltd. 

(Uflex); and Vacmet India Limited 

(Vacmet).2

Subsequently, on September 13, 2017, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.222(c)(1)(i), Commerce published a 

notice of initiation of an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on PET film from India.3

On September 27, 2017, we released 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) import data to eligible parties 

under the Administrative Protective 

Order and invited interested parties to 

submit comments with respect to the 

selection of respondents for individual 

examination.4

On November 20, 2017, Commerce 

determined to limit the number of 

companies subject to individual 

examination in this administrative 

review, and selected Jindal Poly Films 

Ltd. (India) (Jindal) and SRF Limited of 

India (SRF) as mandatory respondents.5

We issued our initial questionnaires 

to Jindal and SRF on November 24, 

2017, and November 27, 2017, 

respectively. The deadline for 

withdrawal requests was December 12, 

2017.6 All review requests were timely 

withdrawn for two companies, MTZ and 

Uflex. 

On January 23, 2018, Commerce 

issued a memorandum tolling all 

deadlines for this investigation by three 

days due to the shutdown of the federal 

government.7 On March 22, 2018, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), 

Commerce extended the due date for the 

preliminary results by an additional 60 

days, from April 5, 2018, to June 4, 

2018.8 On June 1, 2018, in accordance 

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce 

extended the due date for the 

preliminary results by an additional 60 

days. The current deadline is August 3, 

2018.9

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or 

primed polyethylene terephthalate film, 

sheet and strip, whether extruded or 

coextruded. Excluded are metallized 

films and other finished films that have 

had at least one of their surfaces 

modified by the application of a 

performance-enhancing resinous or 

inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 

inches thick. Imports of PET film are 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under item number 3920.62.00.90. 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

Commerce initiated a review of ten 

companies in this proceeding.10 We are 

rescinding this administrative review 

with respect to MTZ and Uflex, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

because all review request of these 

companies were timely withdrawn.11

Accordingly, the companies that remain 

subject to the instant review are: 

Chiripal; Ester; Garware; Jindal; 

Polyplex, SRF; and Vacmet India 

Limited. 

Methodology 

Commerce is conducting this review 

in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of 

the Act. Export price is calculated in 

accordance with section 772 of the Act. 

Normal value is calculated in 

accordance with section 773 of the Act. 

For a full description of the 

methodology underlying our 

conclusions, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum. A list of topics 

included in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum is included as an 

Appendix to this notice. The 

Preliminary 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 http://access.trade.gov and is 

available to all parties in the Central 

Records Unit in room B8024 of the main 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the internet at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. 

The signed and electronic versions of 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

are identical in content. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39669 

12See the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

13The Initiation Notice also lists the company as 

Jindal Poly Films Limited of India. Commerce has 

previously determined that Jindal Poly Films 

Limited of India is the same company as Jindal Poly 

Films Ltd. (India). See Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2015–2016, 82 FR 36735 

(August 7, 2017), and accompanying Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum at FN 1 (unchanged in 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2015–2016, 83 FR 6162 

(February 13, 2018)). 

14See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

15See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing 

requirements). 

16For a full discussion of this clarification, see 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 

(May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). 

17See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from India: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review; 2015–2016, 83 FR 

6162 (February 13, 2018). 

Companies Not Selected for Individual 

Review 

In accordance with section 735(c)(5) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), we preliminarily assign to 

those companies not selected for 

individual review the rate calculated for 

Jindal in this review, because SRF’s rate 

is de minimis.12

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily determine the following 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

the period July 1, 2016, through June 30, 

2017. 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Jindal Poly Films Ltd. 

(India) 13 ............................ 5.50 

SRF Limited of India ............. 0.00 

Garware Polyester Ltd .......... 5.50 

Chiripal Poly Films Limited ... 5.50 

Polyplex Corporation Ltd ...... 5.50 

Ester Industries Limited ........ 5.50 

Vacmet India Limited ............ 5.50 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We intend to disclose the calculations 

performed to parties in this proceeding 

within five days after public 

announcement of the preliminary 

results in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c), 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 

not later than five days after the date for 

filing case briefs.14 Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding 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.15

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, must submit a written request 

to the Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, filed 

electronically via ACCESS. An 

electronically filed document must be 

received successfully in its entirety by 

Commerce’s electronic records system, 

ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 

30 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. Requests should contain: (1) 

The party’s name, address and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

respective case briefs. Commerce 

intends to issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of the issues raised 

in any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, unless extended, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, Commerce shall 

determine, and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. If a respondent’s weightedaverage dumping margin is not zero or 

de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent) 

in the final results of this review, we 

will calculate importer-specific ad 

valorem assessment rates on the basis of 

the ratio of the total amount of dumping 

calculated for an importer’s examined 

sales and the total entered value of such 

sales in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where either the 

respondent’s weighted-average dumping 

margin is zero or de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c), or an 

importer-specific rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate the appropriate entries 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

Commerce clarified its ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 

2003.16 This clarification applies to 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by a respondent for 

which it did not know its merchandise 

was destined for the United States. In 

such instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. 

We intend to issue instructions to 

CBP 15 days after publication of the 

final results of this review. 

Assessment and Cash Deposit 

Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective for all shipments of 

PET film from India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided for 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for the company 

under review will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

review (except, if the rate is zero or de 

minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required); (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the less-thanfair-value investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters is 5.71 percent.17 These 

cash deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.213(h)(1). 

Dated: August 3, 2018. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

IV. Scope of the Order 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39670 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 

42974 (September 13, 2017). 

2See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 

the Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty 

Adminsitrative Review: Certain Corrosion-Resistant 

Steel Products from India,’’ dated concurrently with 

this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 

3 Id. 

4See 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. 

5Cross-owned affiliates are: JSW Steel Coated 

Products Limited (a producer and exporter of 

subject merchandise), Amba River Coke Limited, 

JSW Steel (Salav) Limited, and JSW Steel 

Processing Centers Limited. 

6Cross-owned affiliates are: Uttam Value Steels 

Limited (a producer and exporter of subject 

merchandise) and Uttam Galva Metallics Limited. 

7See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

8See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(l)(ii) and 351.309(d)(l). 

9See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). 

10See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

11See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

12See 19 CFR 351.310. 

13See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

V. Product Comparisons 

VI. Comparison to Normal Value 

1. Determination of Comparison Method 

2. Results of the Differential Pricing 

Analysis 

3. Date of Sale 

4. Export Price 

5. Normal Value 

6. Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Comparison Market Prices 

7. Currency Conversion 

VII. Companies Not Selected 

VIII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2018–17178 Filed 8–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–864] 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel 

Products From India: Preliminary 

Results of the Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review; 2015–2016 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) preliminarily determines 

that certain corrosion-resistant steel 

products (CORE) from India are being, 

or are likely to be, sold in the United 

States at less than normal value during 

the period of review (POR) November 6, 

2015, through December 31, 2016. 

DATES: Applicable August 10, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin Neuman or Matthew Renkey, 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 or (202) 482–2312, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 13, 2017, Commerce 

initiated this administrative review on 

CORE from India covering JSW Steel 

Limited and Uttam Galva Steels 

Limited.1 The events that have occurred 

between initiation and these 

preliminary results are discussed in the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

dated concurrently with and hereby 

adopted by this notice.2

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

certain corrosion-resistant steel 

products from India. For a full 

description of the scope, see the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3

Methodology 

Commerce is conducting this review 

in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). For each of the subsidy 

programs found countervailable, we 

preliminarily determine 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 conclusions, see the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A 

list of topics included in the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum is 

included as an Appendix to this notice. 

The Preliminary 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 http://access.trade.gov and in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the internet at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum and 

the electronic versions of the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine the total 

estimated net countervailable subsidy 

rates for the period November 6, 2015, 

through December 31, 2016 to be: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Subsidy rate 

(percent 

ad valorem) 

JSW Steel Limited and JSW 

Steel Coated Products 

Limited 5 ............................ 11.30 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Subsidy rate 

(percent 

ad valorem) 

Uttam Galva Steels Limited 

and Uttam Value Steels 

Limited 6 ............................ 15.45 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

Commerce intends to disclose to 

parties to this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of these 

preliminary results in the Federal 

Register. 7 Interested parties may submit 

written comments (case briefs) within 

30 days after the date of publication of 

the preliminary results and rebuttal 

comments (rebuttal briefs) within five 

days after the time limit for filing case 

briefs.8 Rebuttal briefs must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs.9

Parties who submit case or rebuttal 

briefs are requested to submit with the 

argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 

(2) a brief summary of the argument; 

and (3) a table of authorities.10

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing must do so within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary results 

by submitting a written request to the 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, using Enforcement and 

Compliance’s ACCESS system.11

Requests should contain the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number, 

the number of participants, and a list of 

the issues to be discussed. If a request 

for a hearing is made, we intend to 

inform parties of the scheduled date for 

the hearing, which will be held at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230, at a time and location to be 

determined.12 Parties should confirm by 

telephone the date, time, and location of 

the hearing. Issues addressed at the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the briefs.13 All briefs and hearing 

requests must be filed electronically and 

received successfully in their entirety 

through ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act, Commerce intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of our analysis of 

the issues raised by the parties in their 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES