Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Commerce International Trade Administration [C-533-902]
 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.* 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. 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] 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 
                    ( print 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: Company
Subsidy rate
                             (percent)Bergwerff Organic India Private Limited 6
9.57Shanti Worldwide
283.91Shri Sumati Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd
283.91Navjyot International Pvt. Ltd
283.91Ish Agritech Pvt. Ltd 7
283.91Satguru Organics Pvt. Ltd 8
283.91Radiance Overseas 9
283.91Swastik Enterprises 10
283.91Soni Soya Products Limited 11
283.91Raj Foods International 12
283.91Vantage Organic Foods Pvt. Ltd 13
283.91Shree Bhagwati Oil Mill 14
283.91Pragati Organics 15
283.91All Others
9.57
  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 
                        ( print 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


# Footnotes

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). Back to Citation
 2.
    
                         
                        *See*
                         Memorandum, “Post-Preliminary Analysis Memorandum,” dated December 8, 2021. Back to Citation
 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). Back to Citation
 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. Back to Citation
 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. Back to Citation
 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.* Back to Citation


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