Notice2025-14337
Overhead Door Counterbalance Torsion Springs From India and the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determinations of Critical Circumstances, in Part, in the Less-Than-Fair Value Investigations
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 29, 2025
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of overhead door counterbalance torsion springs (overhead door springs) from India and certain imports from the People's Republic of China (China).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 143 (Tuesday, July 29, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 29, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35662-35666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-14337]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-936, A-570-186]
Overhead Door Counterbalance Torsion Springs From India and the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determinations of
Critical Circumstances, in Part, in the Less-Than-Fair Value
Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily
determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of
overhead door counterbalance torsion springs (overhead door springs)
from India and certain imports from the People's Republic of China
(China).
DATES: Applicable July 29, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth Brown (India), Office IX at (202)
482-0029 or Jacob Keller (China), Office I at (202) 482-4849; AD/CVD
Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 25, 2024, Commerce initiated the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigations of overhead door springs from India and China.\1\
On June 24, 2025, the IDC Group, Inc., Iowa Spring Manufacturing, Inc.,
and Service Spring Corp. (collectively, the petitioners) filed timely
critical circumstances allegations, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.206,
alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to overhead
door springs from India and China.\2\ Commerce published its
preliminary LTFV determinations on June 2, 2025.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Overhead Door Counterbalance Torsion Springs from the
People's Republic of China and India: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-
Value Investigations, 89 FR 92895 (November 25, 2024) (Initiation
Notice).
\2\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Allegation of Critical
Circumstances,'' dated June 24, 2025 (Critical Circumstances
Allegation China); see also Petitioners' Letter, ``Allegation of
Critical Circumstances,'' dated June 24, 2025 (Critical
Circumstances Allegation India).
\3\ See Overhead Door Counterbalance Torsion Springs from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 90 FR 23311 (June 2, 2025) (China
Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision
Memorandum (PDM); see also Overhead Door Counterbalance Torsion
Springs from India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and
Extension of Provisional Measures, 90 FR 23316 (June 2, 2025) (India
Preliminary Determination), and accompanying PDM (collectively,
Preliminary Determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1) and (c)(2)(ii), when a
critical circumstances allegation is filed 30 days or more before the
scheduled date of the final determination, but later than 20 days
before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, Commerce
will make a preliminary finding whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that critical circumstances exits and will issue a
preliminary critical circumstances determination within 30 days after
the allegation is filed.
Legal Framework
Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce, upon receipt
of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will determine
whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i)
there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped
imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise,
or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the
subject merchandise at less than fair value and that there was likely
to be material injury by reasons of such sales; and (B) there have been
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short
period.
Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1) provides that, in determining whether
imports of the subject merchandise have been ``massive,'' Commerce will
normally examine: (i) the volume and value of the imports; (ii)
seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted
for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that,
``{i{time} n general, unless the imports during the `relatively short
period'. . . have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports
during an immediately preceding period of comparable duration, the
Secretary will not consider the imports massive.'' Section 351.206(i)
of Commerce's regulations defines ``relatively short period'' generally
as the period starting on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the
date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later.
This section of the regulations further provides that, if Commerce
``finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to
believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a
proceeding was likely,'' Commerce may consider a period of not less
than three months from that earlier time.
Critical Circumstances Allegations
India
In their allegation, the petitioners stated that, based on the
dumping margins calculated in the petition (i.e., 46.75 percent to
126.14 percent), importers knew, or should have known, that imports of
overhead door springs from India were being sold at LTFV because these
margins exceeds the 25 and 15 percent thresholds established in
Commerce's regulations for export price (EP) and constructed export
price (CEP), respectively.\4\ Additionally, the petitioners contended
that the U.S. International Trade Commission's (ITC's) preliminary
affirmative injury determination provides a reasonable basis to impute
importers' knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such
imports.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation China; see also
Critical Circumstances Allegation India.
\5\ See Overhead Door Counterbalance Torsion Springs from China
and India, 89 FR 103877 (December 19, 2024) (ITC Preliminary
Determination); see also Critical Circumstances Allegation China and
Critical Circumstances Allegation India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners also allege that there was a massive increase of
imports of overhead door springs from India and provided monthly import
data for the period June 2024 through March 2025.\6\ The petitioners
state that a comparison of total imports, by quantity, for the base
period June 2024 through October 2024 to the comparison period November
2024 through March 2025, shows imports of overhead door springs from
[[Page 35663]]
India increased by 117.32 percent,\7\ which is considered ``massive''
under 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation India at 8.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China
In their allegation, the petitioners stated that based on the
dumping margins calculated in the petition (i.e., 669.36 percent to
778.31 percent), importers knew, or should have known, that imports of
overhead door springs from China were being sold at LTFV because these
margins exceed the 25 and 15 percent thresholds established in
Commerce's regulations for EP and CEP, respectively.\8\ Additionally,
the petitioners contended that the ITC's preliminary affirmative injury
determination provides a reasonable basis to impute importers'
knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such imports.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Initiation Notice; see also Critical Circumstances
Allegation China and Critical Circumstances Allegation India.
\9\ See ITC Preliminary Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners also allege that there was a massive increase of
imports of overhead door springs from China and provided monthly import
data for the period June 2024 through March 2025.\10\ The petitioners
state that a comparison period November 2024 through March 2025 shows
that imports of overhead door springs from China increased by 25.44
percent,\11\ which is considered ``massive'' under 19 CFR
351.206(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation China at 8.
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis
Generally, when determining whether critical circumstances exist
pursuant to the statutory criteria, Commerce examines record evidence,
including: (1) the evidence presented in the petitioners' allegation;
(2) import statistics released by the ITC; and (3) shipment information
submitted to Commerce by the respondents selected for individual
examination.\12\ Consistent with Commerce's practice, here we examined
record information obtained since the initiation of this
investigation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the
People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972-73 (June 5, 2008);
see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter
Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 2049,
2052-53 (January 14, 2009).
\13\ See, e.g., Critical Circumstances Allegation China; and
China Preliminary Determination. See also Critical Circumstances
Allegation India; and India Preliminary Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Facts Available With Adverse Inferences
As discussed in the Preliminary Determinations, we determined that
the use of facts otherwise available with adverse inferences (AFA),
pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, was appropriate for the
preliminary determination with respect to Asha Spring and Engineering
Company (Asha Spring), Balaji Springs Pvt. Ltd. (Balaji Springs),
Modern Engineering & Spring Company (Modern Engineering), and Reliable
Springs Ltd (Reliable Springs) in the India LTFV investigation; and the
China-wide entity which included the mandatory respondents Foshan
Xulong Spring Factory (Xulong Spring) and Tianjin Wangxia Spring Co
Ltd. (Tianjin Wangxia) in the China LTFV investigation. Therefore,
because we determined that the use of AFA, pursuant to sections 776(a)
and (b) of the Act, was necessary for this preliminary determination,
we preliminarily find that necessary information is not on the record,
pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, because these
respondents in both the India and China LTFV investigations withheld
information that Commerce requested, significantly impeded these
proceedings, and failed to provide information within the deadlines
established, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the
Act, respectively, we find that the use of the facts otherwise
available is warranted. Furthermore, Alcomex Springs Pvt. Ltd.
(Alcomex), the mandatory respondent in the India LTFV investigation,
withdrew its participation following the preliminary determination;
\14\ therefore, information Alcomex provided cannot be verified, and
pursuant to section 776(a)(D) of the Act we find that the use of facts
otherwise available is appropriate for Alcomex. Consequently, we have
made a preliminary determination of critical circumstances on the basis
of facts otherwise available for Alcomex and other non-responsive
companies in the India LTFV investigation and for the China-wide entity
in the China LTFV investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Alcomex's Letter, ``Alcomex's Withdrawal of
Participation from Investigation,'' dated June 3, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that Commerce may use an adverse
inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available when a
party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with a request for information. Further, section 776(b)(2) of
the Act states that an adverse inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the
investigation, a previous administrative review, or other information
submitted on the record. Because we find that the respondents listed
above did not cooperate to the best of their abilities in these
investigations, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that
adverse inferences are warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise
available regarding certain aspects of these preliminary determinations
of critical circumstances. We detail our use of adverse inferences in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available below.
Section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act: History of Dumping and Material
Injury by Reason of Dumped Imports in the United States or Elsewhere of
the Subject Merchandise
In determining whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to
section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce generally considers
current or previous antidumping duty (AD) orders on subject merchandise
from the country in question in the United States and current orders in
any other country with regard to imports of subject merchandise.\15\
There are no current or previous AD orders on overhead door springs
from India or China in the United States, and Commerce is not aware of
the existence of any active AD orders on overhead door springs from
India or China in other countries. Therefore, Commerce preliminarily
finds that there is no history of injurious dumping of overhead door
springs from India or China; thus, this criterion is not met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination
of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination,
74 FR 59117, 59120 (November 17, 2009), unchanged in Certain Oil
Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of
Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act: The Importer Knew or Should Have
Known That the Exporter Was Selling at Less Than Fair Value and That
There Was Likely To Be Material Injury
In determining whether importers knew or should have known that
exporters were selling subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, Commerce must
rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made.
Commerce
[[Page 35664]]
generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge on the margins
calculated in the preliminary determination and the ITC's preliminary
injury determination.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See, e.g., Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from
India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of
Provisional Measures, 86 FR 49299 (September 2, 2021), and
accompanying PDM at 15, unchanged in Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 87 FR 3772 (January 25, 2022); see also Oil
Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical
Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of
Provisional Measures, 87 FR 28808 (May 11, 2022), and accompanying
PDM at 11, unchanged in Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Final
Affirmative Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Critical Circumstances, 87 FR 59041 (September 29, 2022)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for EP
sales and 15 percent or more for CEP sales to impute importer knowledge
of sales at LTFV.\17\ For the India investigation, we preliminarily
calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 87.20 percent for
Alcomex and all other producers and/or exporters, and the highest
corroborated dumping margin alleged in the petition of 124.86 percent
as the AFA rate for Asha Spring, Balaji Springs, Modern Engineering,
and Reliable Springs.\18\ Because the preliminary dumping margins for
India exceed the thresholds sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping,
we preliminarily find that there is a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that these producers/exports of subject merchandise knew, or
should have known, that the exporters were selling subject merchandise
at LTFV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Germany,
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February
11, 2002) (Steel Wire Rod Prelim), unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Moldova, 67 FR 55790 (August 30, 2002)
(Steel Wire Rod Final).
\18\ See India Preliminary Determination PDM at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the China investigation, we preliminarily applied the highest
corroborated dumping margin alleged in the petition of 778.31 percent
as the AFA rate for Xulong Spring, Tianjin Wangxia, and the China-wide
entity. We further preliminarily applied the simple average of the
petition margins of 734.33 percent as the separate rate for the
following Chinese exporters: Chi Hardware Corporation Limited (Chi
Hardware), Hangzhou Fuxing Spring Co., Ltd. (Fuxing), Hebei Meirui
Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd. (Hebei Meirui), MFG Direct (Ningbo) Limited
(Ningbo Direct), Ningbo Well Lift Door Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Well), Wuxi
JiuPie Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Wuxi JiuPie), and Wuxi Kop
Door Technology Co., Ltd (Wuxi KOP).\19\ Because the preliminary
dumping margins for China exceed the thresholds sufficient to impute
knowledge of dumping, we preliminarily find that there is a reasonable
basis to believe or suspect that these producers/exports of subject
merchandise knew, or should have known, that the exporters were selling
subject merchandise at LTFV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See China Preliminary Determination. PDM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that
there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such
imports, Commerce normally will look to the preliminary injury
determination of the ITC.\20\ If the ITC finds a reasonable indication
of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, Commerce will
determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge
that material injury is likely by reason of such imports.\21\ Here, the
ITC preliminarily found that there is ``reasonable indication'' of
material injury to the domestic injury because of the imported subject
merchandise from India and China.\22\ Therefore, the ITC's preliminary
injury determination is sufficient to impute knowledge to imports of
the likelihood of material injury. For India, Commerce determines that
importers knew, or should have known, that there was likely to be
material injury by reason of sales of overhead door springs by Alcomex,
Asha Spring, Balaji Springs, Modern Engineering, and Reliable Springs.
Additionally, for China, Commerce determines that importers knew, or
should have known, that there was likely to be material injury by
reason of sales of overhead door springs by Xulong Spring, Tianjin
Wangxia, Chi Hardware, Fuxing, Hebei Meirui, Ningbo Direct, Ningbo
Well, Wuxi JiuPie, Wuxi KOP, and the China-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010).
\21\ See, e.g., Steel Wire Rod Prelim, unchanged in Steel Wire
Rod Final.
\22\ See ITC Preliminary Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 733(e)(1)(B): Whether There Have Been Massive Imports of the
Subject Merchandise Over a Relatively Short Period
In determining whether there have been ``massive imports'' over a
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h), Commerce normally compares the import
volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months
immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the ``base
period'') to a comparable period of at least three months following the
filing of the petition (i.e., the ``comparison period''). However, the
regulations also provide that if Commerce finds that importers, or
exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to
the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, Commerce
may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier
time.\23\ Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), imports must increase by at
least 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' to be
considered ``massive.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
India
As discussed above, we are applying AFA in reaching our findings
for certain aspects of this preliminary determination of critical
circumstances. Specifically, for Alcomex, Asha Spring, Balaji Springs,
Modern Engineering, and Reliable Springs, because of these companies'
noncooperation in this investigation, we do not have information
regarding their import volumes. Therefore, as AFA, we preliminarily
find that the companies listed above had massive imports of subject
merchandise over a relatively short period, satisfying the criterion
under section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h). Thus, we
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist regarding
imports of overhead door springs from India shipped by Alcomex, Asha
Spring, Balaji Springs, Modern Engineering, and Reliable Springs,
pursuant to section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206.
To determine whether imports are massive within the meaning of 19
CFR 351.206(h) for all other exporters or producers, Commerce's normal
practice is to subtract shipments reported by the cooperating mandatory
respondents from the overall shipment data of subject merchandise.
However, as stated above, there are no cooperative mandatory
respondents in the India investigation. Therefore, for all other
exporters and producers, we compared the monthly shipment data using
import data from Trade Data Monitor (TDM) for the five months preceding
and following the filing of the petition. Because the petition was
filed on October 20, 2024, in order to determine whether there was a
massive surge in imports, Commerce
[[Page 35665]]
compared the total volume of shipments during the period June 2024
through October 2024 with the volumes of shipments during the period
November 2024 through March 2025.\24\ The quantity for shipments
recorded in the TDM data for U.S. tariff schedule codes 7320.20.5020,
7320.20.5045, and 7320.20.5060 during the comparison period exceeded
the quantity of shipments recorded for the base period by 15
percent.\25\ Therefore, we determine that the record supports a
determination that there is a massive surge in imports between the base
and comparison periods for all other exporters and producers of
overhead door springs from India.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Memorandum, ``Preliminary Critical Circumstances
Analysis,'' dated concurrently with this memorandum (Critical
Circumstances India Analysis Memorandum), at Attachment.
\25\ Id.
\26\ See, e.g., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from
Argentina, Colombia, Egypt, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, the
Republic of Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary
Affirmative Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determinations, in
Part, 85 FR 61722 (September 30, 2020), and accompanying PDM at 12-
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, consistent with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, Commerce
preliminary determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of
overhead door springs from India from all exporters and producers. For
the underlying data and results of Commerce's analysis, see the India
Critical Circumstances Analysis Memorandum.
China
As discussed above, for China we are applying AFA to reach our
findings for certain aspects of this preliminary determination of
critical circumstances. Specifically, for Xulong Spring and Tianjin
Wangxia, because of these companies' noncooperation in this
investigation, we do not have information regarding their import
volumes. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the respondents listed
above had massive imports of subject merchandise over a relatively
short period, satisfying the criterion under section 733(e)(1)(B) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h). Thus, we preliminarily determine that
critical circumstances exist regarding imports of overhead door springs
from China shipped by Xulong Spring, Tianjin Wangxia, and the China-
wide entity, pursuant to section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206.
To determine whether imports are massive within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.206(h) for all other exporters or producers, Commerce's normal
practice is to subtract shipments reported by the cooperating mandatory
respondents from the overall shipment data of subject merchandise.
However, as stated above, there are no cooperative mandatory
respondents under the China investigation. Therefore, for all other
exporters and producers, we compared the monthly shipment data using
import data from Trade Data Monitor (TDM) for the five months preceding
and following the filing of the petition. Because the petition was
filed on October 20, 2024, in order to determine whether there was a
massive surge in imports, Commerce compared the total volume of
shipments during the period June 2024 through October 2024 with the
volumes of shipments during the period November 2024 through March
2025.\27\ The quantity for shipments recorded in the TDM data for U.S.
tariff schedule codes 7320.20.5020, 7320.20.5045, and 7320.20.5060
during the comparison period did not exceed the quantity of shipments
recorded for the base period by 15 percent.\28\ Therefore, we determine
that the record does not support a determination that there is a
massive surge in imports between the base and comparison periods for
all other exporters and producers of overhead door springs from
China.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Memorandum, ``Preliminary Critical Circumstances
Analysis,'' dated concurrently with this memorandum (Critical
Circumstances China Analysis Memorandum), at Attachment.
\28\ Id.
\29\ See, e.g., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from
Argentina, Colombia, Egypt, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, the
Republic of Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary
Affirmative Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determinations, in
Part, 85 FR 61722 (September 30, 2020), and accompanying PDM at 12-
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, consistent with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, Commerce
preliminary determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of
overhead door springs from China from the China-wide entity but do not
exist with regards to Chinese separate rate companies. For the
underlying data and results of Commerce's analysis, see the China
Critical Circumstances Analysis Memorandum.
Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in
Part
Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect
to all producers and/or exporters in India. Additionally, in China we
preliminarily determine critical circumstances exist for the China-wide
entity.
Final Critical Circumstances Determinations
We will make final determinations concerning critical circumstances
in the final determinations of the China and India LTFV investigations,
which are currently scheduled for August 11, 2025, and October 15,
2025, respectively.
Public Comment
Written comments limited to these preliminary critical
circumstances determinations may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than three 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 two days
after the date for filing case briefs. All comments regarding these
preliminary critical circumstances determinations are subject to the
same request for public executive summaries in case and rebuttal
briefs, as noted in the Preliminary Determinations.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See China Preliminary Determination, 89 FR at 23311; see
also India Preliminary Determination, 89 FR at 23317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension of Liquidation
Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative
determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation
shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of: (a)
the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of
liquidation was first ordered; or (b) the date on which notice of
initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily
finds that critical circumstances exist for all imports of overhead
door springs from India and China. In accordance with section
733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation ordered in the
Preliminary Determinations shall be amended to apply to all
unliquidated entries of subject merchandise from all producers and
exporters of overhead door springs from India and China that were
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of
liquidation was first ordered. These suspension of liquidation
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
U.S. ITC Notification
In accordance with section 773(f) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of these preliminary determinations of critical circumstances.
[[Page 35666]]
These determinations are issued and published pursuant to sections
733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(iii).
Dated: July 24, 2025.
Christopher Abbot,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2025-14337 Filed 7-28-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 29, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.