3122 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Notices 

1See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from 

India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 82 FR 51387 (November 6, 2017) 

(Preliminary Determination) and accompanying 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum). 

2See Commerce Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination 

in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Fine 

Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India,’’ dated 

concurrently with this determination and hereby 

adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum). 

3See Commerce Memorandum, ‘‘Fine Denier 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic 

of China, India, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: 

Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated May 31, 2016 

(Preliminary Scope Memorandum); see also See 

Commerce Memorandum, ‘‘Due Dates for Case and 

Rebuttal Briefs Regarding the Scope,’’ dated 

December 11, 2017. 

4See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from 

India and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 29029 

(June 27, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice serves as the only reminder to 

parties subject to an 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 or 

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 subject to sanction. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 705(d) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: January 16, 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. 

Appendix I 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Investigation 

IV. Scope Comments 

V. Application of the Countervailing Duty 

Law to Imports from the PRC 

VI. Subsidies Valuation Information 

VII. Benchmarks and Discount Rates 

VIII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Inferences 

IX. Analysis of Programs 

X. Analysis of Comments 

Comment 1: Application of AFA to the 

Electricity Program 

Comment 2: Export Buyer’s Credit Program 

Comment 3: Market Distortion in the MEG/ 

PTA Industry 

Comment 4: Input Benchmarks 

Comment 5: Hailun Verification Minor 

Corrections 

Comment 6: Huahong Verification Minor 

Corrections 

Comment 7: Exclusion of Finance Leasing 

and Margin Trading from the Policy 

Loans Benefit Calculation 

Comment 8: Treatment of Hailun’s Other 

Types of Financing under the Policy 

Loan Program 

Comment 9: PTA for LTAR Benefit 

Comment 10: Sales Denominator for the 

Sanfangxiang Group 

Comment 11: Sales Denominator for 

Hailun Petrochemical 

Comment 12: Treatment of ForeignPurchased Inputs 

Comment 13: Correction of Calculation 

Errors for Huahong 

Comment 14: Correction of Calculation 

Errors for Hailun 

XI. Recommendation 

Appendix II 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is fine denier polyester staple 

fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, 

measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in 

diameter. The scope covers all fine denier 

PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The 

following products are excluded from the 

scope: 

(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex 

(more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently 

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065. 

(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bicomponent polyester fiber having a polyester 

fiber component that melts at a lower 

temperature than the other polyester fiber 

component, which is currently classifiable 

under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015. 

Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the 

HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

investigations is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2018–01152 Filed 1–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–876] 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber 

From India: Final Affirmative 

Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine 

denier PSF) from India. The period of 

investigation is January 1, 2016, through 

December 31, 2016. For information on 

the estimated subsidy rates, see the 

‘‘Final Determination and Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Applicable January 23, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli 

Lovely or Trisha Tran, 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) 482–1593 or (202) 482–4852, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 6, 2017, Commerce 

published the Preliminary 

Determination.1 A summary of the 

events that occurred since Commerce 

published the Preliminary 

Determination, as well as a full 

discussion of the issues raised by parties 

for this final determination, may be 

found in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 2 issued concurrently 

with this notice. 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 http://

access.trade.gov, and is available to all 

parties in the Central Records Unit, 

Room B8024 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ 

frn/. The signed Issues and Decision 

Memorandum and the electronic 

version are identical in content. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the Preliminary 

Scope Memorandum, Commerce 

provided parties an opportunity to 

provide comments on all issues 

regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).3

Certain interested parties commented on 

the scope of the investigation as it 

appeared in the Initiation Notice.4 As a 

result, the scope of this investigation 

was modified for the preliminary 

determination. No further changes to the 

scope of the investigation were made to 

this final determination. For a summary 

of the product coverage comments and 

rebuttal responses submitted to the 

record for this final determination, and 

accompanying discussion and analysis 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Notices 3123 

5See Commerce Memorandum, ‘‘Fine Denier 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic 

of China, India, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: 

Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Determinations,’’ dated concurrently with this 

determination and hereby adopted by this notice 

(Final Scope Memorandum). 

6See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 

7See Commerce Memoranda, ‘‘Bombay Dyeing 

Final Determination Calculation Memorandum,’’ 

dated January 16, 2018 (Bombay Dyeing’s Final 

Calculation Memorandum) and ‘‘Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple 

Fiber from India: Final Determination Calculation 

for Reliance Industries Limited,’’ dated January 16, 

2018 (Reliance’s Final Calculation Memorandum). 8With two respondents under examination, the 

Department normally calculates (A) a weightedaverage of the estimated subsidy rates calculated for 

the examined respondents; (B) a simple average of 

the estimated subsidy rates calculated for the 

examined respondents; and (C) a weighted-average 

of the estimated subsidy rates calculated for the 

examined respondents using each company’s 

publicly-ranged U.S. sale quantities for the 

merchandise under consideration. The Department 

then compares (B) and (C) to (A) and selects the rate 

closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all 

other producers and exporters. See, e.g., Ball 

Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, 

Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final 

Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and 

Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 

(September 1, 2010). As complete publicly ranged 

sales data was available, the Department based the 

all-others rate on the publicly ranged sales data of 

the mandatory respondents. For a complete analysis 

of the data, please see the All-Others’ Rate 

Calculation Memorandum. 

of all comments timely received, see the 

Final Scope Decision Memorandum.5

Methodology 

Commerce conducted this 

countervailing duty (CVD) investigation 

in accordance with section 701 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

For each of the subsidy programs found 

to be countervailable, we 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. For a 

full description of the methodology 

underlying our final determination, see 

the Issues and Decisions Memorandum. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is fine denier PSF from 

India. For a complete description of the 

scope of this investigation, see 

Appendix II. 

Analysis of Subsidy Programs and 

Comments Received 

The subsidy programs under 

investigation, and the issues raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by 

the parties, are discussed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. A list of 

the issues that parties raised, and to 

which we responded in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, is attached to 

this notice at Appendix I. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) 

For purposes of this final 

determination, we relied on facts 

available, and because certain 

respondents did not act to the best of 

their ability in responding to 

Commerce’s requests for information, 

we drew an adverse inference, where 

appropriate, in selecting from among the 

facts otherwise available.6 A full 

discussion of our decision to rely on 

adverse facts available is presented in 

the ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

and Adverse Inferences’’ section of the 

Issues and Decisions Memorandum. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our review and analysis of 

the comments received from parties, 

and minor corrections presented at 

verification, we made certain changes to 

the respondents’ sales figures and 

subsidy rate calculations since the 

Preliminary Determination. For a 

discussion of these changes, see the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum and 

the Final Calculation Memoranda.7

Final Determination 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated 

an individual rate for each producer/ 

exporter of the subject merchandise 

individually investigated. 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies 

not individually investigated, we apply 

an ‘‘all-others’’ rate. Under section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the ‘‘allothers’’ rate excludes zero and de 

minimis rates calculated for the 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated as well as rates based 

entirely on facts otherwise available. 

Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of 

the Act, we have calculated the ‘‘allothers’’ rate using the subsidy rates of 

the two individually investigated 

respondents. The Department calculated 

the all-others’ rate using a weighted 

average of the individual estimated 

subsidy rates calculated for the 

examined respondents using each 

company’s publicly-ranged values for 

the merchandise under consideration.8

Company Subsidy rate 

(percent) 

Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Limited .... 13.38 

Reliance Industries Limited .. 27.36 

All-Others .............................. 24.80 

Disclosure 

We intend to disclose to parties in 

this proceeding the calculations 

performed for this final determination 

within five days of the date of public 

announcement of our final 

determination, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

As a result of our Preliminary 

Determination, and pursuant to sections 

703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we 

instructed U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation 

of all entries of merchandise under 

consideration from India that were 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption, on or after November 

6, 2017, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. 

If the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (the ITC) issues a final 

affirmative injury determination, we 

will issue a CVD order, will reinstate the 

suspension of liquidation under section 

706(a) of the Act, and will require a cash 

deposit of estimated CVDs for such 

entries of subject merchandise in the 

amounts indicated above. 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, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

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. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice serves as the only reminder to 

parties subject to an 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 or 

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 subject to sanction. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
3124 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2018 / Notices 

1See Stainless Steel Flanges from India and the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 42654 

(September 11, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 

2See Stainless Steel Flanges from India and the 

People’s Republic of China: Postponement of 

Preliminary Determinations of Countervailing Duty 

Investigations, 82 FR 49786 (October 27, 2017). 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 

the Preliminary Determination of the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel 

Flanges from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this 

notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 

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. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 705(d) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: January 16, 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. 

Appendix I 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. List of Issues 

III. Background 

IV. Scope Comments 

V. Scope of the Investigation 

VI. Subsidies Valuation Information 

VII. Benchmarks and Interest Rates 

VIII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Inferences 

IX. Analysis of Programs 

X. Analysis of Comments 

Comment 1: Whether to Countervail the 

AAP and DDB 

Comment 2: Whether to Apply AFA to 

Reliance and Bombay Dyeing’s 

Discovered Benefits under the TUFS 

Comment 3: Treatment of the EPCG 

Comment 4: Whether to Apply AFA to 

Bombay Dyeing’s Unreported Benefits 

from the SHIS 

Comment 5: Whether Commerce should 

countervail the FPS/IEIS 

Comment 6: Whether Commerce should 

countervail the SGOM PSI 

Comment 7: Whether to Apply AFA to the 

POI Value of Bombay Dyeing’s 

Company-Wide Sales and CompanyWide Export Sales 

Comment 8: Whether to Apply AFA to 

Reliance’s Unreported Benefits from the 

AAP 

Comment 9: Whether to Apply AFA to 

Reliance’s Unreported Benefits from the 

MEIS and the MLFPS 

Comment 10: Whether to Apply AFA to 

Reliance’s Alleged Benefits for EOU 

programs 

Comment 11: Whether to Apply AFA to 

Reliance’s Purported Benefits for Two 

Income Deductions Related to SEZ 

programs 

Comment 12: Whether to Apply AFA to 

Reliance’s Purported Benefits under 

Section 35(1)(iv), Section 35(I)(ii), and 

Section 35(I)(i) Income Tax Deductions 

Comment 13: Whether to Apply AFA to 

Reliance’s Unreported Benefits for SEZ 

programs 

Comment 14: Whether to Revise the 

Application of AFA Rates for SEZ 

programs 

Comment 15: Whether to Apply Total AFA 

to Reliance 

Comment 16: Whether to Revise the 

Calculation of Benefits Received under 

the EPCG 

XI. Recommendation 

Appendix II 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is fine denier polyester staple 

fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, 

measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in 

diameter. The scope covers all fine denier 

PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The 

following products are excluded from the 

scope: 

(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex 

(more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently 

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065. 

(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bicomponent polyester fiber having a polyester 

fiber component that melts at a lower 

temperature than the other polyester fiber 

component, which is currently classifiable 

under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015. 

Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the 

HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

investigations is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2018–01151 Filed 1–22–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–065] 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Stainless Steel Flanges From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) preliminarily determines 

that countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers/exporters of 

stainless steel flanges from the People’s 

Republic of China (China). The period 

of investigation is January 1, 2016, 

through December 31, 2016. We invite 

interested parties to comment on this 

preliminary determination. 

DATES: Applicable January 23, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin Neuman or Jerry Huang, 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) 482–4047, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This preliminary determination is 

made in accordance with section 703(b) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(Act). Commerce published the notice of 

initiation of this investigation on 

September 11, 2017.1 On October 27, 

2017, Commerce postponed the 

preliminary determination of this 

investigation to January 16, 2018.2 For 

a complete description of the events that 

followed the initiation of this 

investigation, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics 

discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum is included at Appendix 

II 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, 

Room B8024 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ 

frn/. The signed and electronic versions 

of the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are stainless steel flanges 

from China. For a complete description 

of the scope of this investigation, see 

Appendix I. 

Methodology 

Commerce is conducting this 

investigation in accordance with section 

701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy 

programs found countervailable, 

Commerce preliminarily 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

In making these findings, Commerce 

relied totally on facts available, because 

neither the GOC nor any of the selected 

mandatory respondent companies 

responded to the questionnaire. Further, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES