Large Diameter Graphite Electrodes From India: Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination in Countervailing Duty Investigation

Issuing agencies

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of large diameter graphite electrodes (large graphite electrodes) from India. The period of investigation is January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination of critical circumstances.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62498-62500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20162]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-949]


Large Diameter Graphite Electrodes From India: Preliminary 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination in Countervailing Duty 
Investigation

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 
large diameter graphite electrodes (large graphite electrodes) from 
India. The period of investigation is January 1, 2025, through December 
31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination of critical circumstances.

DATES: Applicable October 1, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Galantucci, 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) 482-2923.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 20, 2026, Commerce published the notice of initiation of 
this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in the Federal 
Register.\1\ On July 30, 2026, Commerce published its Preliminary 
Determination. \2\ On September 1, 2026, Resonac Graphite America Inc. 
and Tokai Carbon GE LLC (the petitioners) filed a timely critical 
circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 703(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 large graphite electrodes 
from India.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Large Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's 
Republic of China and India: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigations, 91 FR 13577 (March 20, 2026) (Initiation Notice).
    \2\ See Large Diameter Graphite Electrodes from India: 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty 
Determination, 91 FR 48081 (July 30, 2026) (Preliminary 
Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum 
(PDM).
    \3\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Allegation of Critical 
Circumstances,'' dated September 1, 2026 (Petitioners' Allegation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with sections 703(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.206(c)(1), because the petitioners submitted the critical 
circumstances allegation more than 30 days before the scheduled date of 
the final determination, Commerce will make a preliminary finding as to 
whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist. Because the critical circumstances allegation in 
this case was submitted after the Preliminary Determination, Commerce 
must issue its preliminary findings of critical circumstances no later 
than 30 days after the allegation was filed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 62499]]

Critical Circumstances Allegation

    The petitioners allege that there was a massive increase in imports 
of large graphite electrodes from India and provided monthly import 
data for the period of October 2025 through July 2026.\5\ The 
petitioners state that a comparison of total imports, by quantity, for 
the base period of October 2025 through February 2026, with the 
comparison period of March 2026 through July 2026, shows that imports 
from India increased by more than 15percent, which is considered 
``massive'' under 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) and section 703(e)(1)(b) of the 
Act.\6\ The petitioners also allege that there is a reasonable basis to 
believe that there are subsidies in this investigation which are 
inconsistent with the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM 
Agreement) of the World Trade Organization.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Petitioners' Allegation at 6.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Circumstances Analysis

    Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce will 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in a CVD 
investigation if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that: (A) the alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the 
SCM Agreement; \8\ and (B) there have been massive imports of the 
subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Commerce limits its critical circumstances findings to those 
subsidies contingent upon export performance or use of domestic over 
imported goods (i.e., those prohibited under Article 3 of the SCM 
Agreement). See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances 
Determination: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire from Germany, 67 
FR 55808, 55809-10 (August 30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether ``massive imports'' occurred over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 703(e)(1)(B) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h) and (i), 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 the earlier 
time.\9\ Imports normally will be considered massive when imports 
during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more 
compared to imports during the base period.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are Inconsistent With the SCM 
Agreement

    Commerce considered the evidence on the record that certain 
programs are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement because they are 
contingent upon export performance. Based on information on the record, 
we preliminarily find a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
Graphite India Limited (GIL), HEG Limited (HEG), and all other 
producers and/or exporters received countervailable subsidies 
inconsistent with the SCM Agreement under section 703(e)(1)(A) of the 
Act. Such programs include: Advance Authorization Program; Duty 
Drawback Program; Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme; and 
Remission of Duties and Taxes on Export Products.\11\ Thus, because 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect these programs are 
inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, we preliminarily find that the 
criterion under section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act has been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Preliminary Determination PDM at 13-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massive Imports

    Commerce compared the import volumes of GIL's and HEG's reported 
shipments of subject merchandise for the five months immediately 
preceding and the five months following the filing of the petition. 
Because the petition was filed on February 24, 2026, and in order to 
determine whether there was a massive surge in imports for the 
mandatory respondents, Commerce compared the total volume of shipments 
during the period of October 2025 through February 2025 (the base 
period) with the volume of shipments during the period of March 2025 
through July 2021 (the comparison period).\12\ We preliminarily 
determine that imports from both GIL and HEG increased by more than 15 
percent between the base and comparison periods.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See HEG's Letter, ``Critical Circumstances Allegation 
Rebuttal Factual Information,'' dated September 11, 2026 (HEG 
Critical Circumstances Data) at Exhibit CC-1; see also GIL's Letter, 
``Graphite India Limited's Monthly Quantity and Value Shipment 
Data,'' dated September 16, 2026 (GIL Critical Circumstances Data) 
at Exhibit QV-1.
    \13\ See Memorandum, ``Critical Circumstances Analysis,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether imports were massive for all other exporters 
or producers, Commerce's normal practice is to subtract shipments 
reported by the cooperating mandatory respondents from import data for 
subject merchandise.\14 \However, this analysis was not possible in 
this investigation because, for several months of the base and 
comparison periods, the quantity of shipments reported by GIL and HEG 
exceeded the quantity of shipments reported in the third-party import 
data submitted in the Petitioners' Allegation.\15\ Therefore, we find 
that the third-party import data on the record are not reliable to 
determine whether imports of covered merchandise were massive between 
the base and comparison periods for all other exporters and producers. 
Consequently, we relied upon an average of GIL's and HEG's shipments 
during the base and comparison period.\16\ Based on these data, we find 
that there was an increase in imports of more than 15 percent between 
the base and comparison periods. We therefore preliminarily determine 
that there was a massive surge in imports between the base and 
comparison periods for all other producers and exporters from India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Antidumping Duty Investigation on Refillable 
Stainless Steel Kegs from Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 84 FR 18796, 18798 (May 2, 
2019).
    \15\ See Petitioners' Allegation at Attachments 2-3; see also 
GIL Critical Circumstances Data at Exhibit QV-1; and HEG Critical 
Circumstances Data at Exhibit CC-1.
    \16\ See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the 
Russian Federation: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 
FR 12072 (March 8, 2016), and accompanying PDM at 13-14, unchanged 
in Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Russian 
Federation: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 
81 FR 49950 (July 29, 2016), and accompanying IDM at 7-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination

    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances in the final determination of this investigation, which 
is currently scheduled for December 7, 2026.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. A timeline for the 
submission of case briefs and written comments will be provided to 
interested parties at a later date. 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.\17\ Interested parties who submit

[[Page 62500]]

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a 
table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of 
authorities.\18\ As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and 
(d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the 
beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue 
raised in their briefs.\19\ Further, we request that interested parties 
limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, 
not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as 
the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision 
memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this 
investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for 
relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that 
Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the 
service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d); see also Administrative Protective 
Order, Service, and Other Procedures in Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29, 
2023) (APO and Service Final Rule).
    \18\ See 19 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2)
    \19\ We use the term ``issue'' here to describe an argument that 
Commerce would normally address in a comment of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.
    \20\ See APO and Service Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, for GIL, HEG, 
and all other producers and/or exporters, we intend to direct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of any 
unliquidated entries of subject merchandise from India entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after May 1, 2026, 
which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register. For such entries, CBP shall 
require a cash deposit equal to the estimated preliminary subsidy rates 
established in the Preliminary Determination. This suspension of 
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of this preliminary determination of critical circumstances.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206.

     Dated: September 28, 2026.
Scot Fullerton,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2026-20162 Filed 9-30-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre></body>
</html>