Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results With Respect to Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Company, Ltd., 21977-21979 [2017-09578]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
21977
LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE—
Continued
[4/11/2017 through 4/25/2017]
Firm name
Date accepted
for
investigation
Firm address
Aurora Circuits, Inc ................
2250 White Oak Circle, Aurora, IL 60502.
4/19/2017
Loudspeaker Components,
LLC.
7596 U.S. Highway 61 South,
Lancaster, WI 53813.
4/12/2017
Michiana Global Mold, Inc .....
1702 East 7th Street,
Mishawaka, IN 46544.
401 East Avenue B, Salina,
KS 67402.
N56 W24842 Corporate Circle, Sussex, WI 53089.
4/20/2017
Metlcast Industries, LLC ........
The Industrial Controls Company, Inc.
Sunflower Electrical Systems,
LLC.
Miriam Kearse,
Lead Program Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2017–09589 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–WH–P
Jkt 241001
4/25/2017
The firm manufactures printed circuit boards including single
sided, double sided and multi-layer which are made of
copper, aluminum, fiberglass and other substrates.
The firm manufactures speakers and speaker components
including speaker cone assemblies (diaphragm), paperboard gasket, dust caps and spiders using manufacturing
technologies
such
as
paper
making,
plastic
thermoforming, plastic injection molding, foam cutting and
cloth treating sold in the OEM Automotive, aftermarket
automotive, professional, multi-media, Hi-Fi, home alarm
and musical instrument markets.
The firm manufactures plastic and rubber injection molds.
The firm manufactures ductile and gray iron and other alloys.
The firm manufactures electrical control systems including
custom control panels, production panels and hazardous
location panels using electrical components such as wire,
wire harnesses, connectors, controllers, relays, switches
and indicators which are housed in cabinets, enclosures
and brackets.
The firm manufactures custom electromechanical wire assemblies and harnesses.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–904]
Certain Activated Carbon From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
Final Results of Administrative Review
and Notice of Amended Final Results
With Respect to Ningxia Huahui
Activated Carbon Company, Ltd.
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 27, 2017, the Court
of International Trade (CIT) issued its
final judgment, sustaining the
Department of Commerce’s (the
Department’s) remand results pertaining
to the third administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
activated carbon from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC) covering the
period of review (POR) of April 1, 2009,
through March 31, 2010. The
Department is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in
harmony with the final results of the
administrative review, and that the
Department is amending the final
results with respect to Ningxia Huahui
Activated Carbon Company, Ltd.
(Huahui).
AGENCY:
DATES:
16:52 May 10, 2017
4/25/2017
8302 Hedge Lane Terrace,
Suite H, Shawnee, KS
66227.
Any party having a substantial
interest in these proceedings may
request a public hearing on the matter.
A written request for a hearing must be
submitted to the Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Firms Division, Room
71030, Economic Development
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no
later than ten (10) calendar days
following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set
forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR
315.9 for procedures to request a public
hearing. The Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance official number
and title for the program under which
these petitions are submitted is 11.313,
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
4/24/2017
Product(s)
PO 00000
Effective Date: May 7, 2017.
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations
Office VIII, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–9068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 31, 2011, the Department
issued the AR3 Final Results in its
review of certain activated carbon from
the PRC,1 in which the Department
calculated zero and de minimis
weighted-average dumping margins for
the individually-examined
respondents.2 In the AR3 Final Results,
the Department determined that
averaging the individually-examined
respondents’ zero and de minimis rates
to establish separate rates for nonselected exporters would not be
reasonably reflective of potential
dumping margins during the POR.3 In
1 See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 67142 (October 31, 2011) (AR3 Final
Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
2 The individually examined respondents were
Jacobi Carbons AB and Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co.,
Ltd.
3 See AR3 Final Results and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at 5.
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
21978
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
particular, the Department assigned to
Huahui the $0.44/kg dumping margin it
had assigned Huahui as an individuallyexamined respondent in the second
administrative review, and assigned to
all other separate rate respondents a
dumping margin of $0.28/kg, which was
the margin the Department had assigned
to separate rate respondents in the
second administrative review.4
Certain separate rate respondents and
their respective U.S. importers 5
challenged the Department’s separate
rate determinations in the CIT.6 The
CIT, in Albemarle I, remanded the
Department’s determination with regard
to the separate rates assigned to Shanxi
DMD and GHC/BPAC, and ordered the
Department to reconsider its assignment
of the $0.28/kg dumping margin to those
separate rate respondents.7 The CIT
reserved any decision regarding whether
the $0.44/kg dumping margin assigned
to Huahui was permissible until its
review of the Department’s remand
redetermination.8 On remand following
Albemarle I, the Department, under
protest, averaged the zero and de
minimis margins assigned to the
individually-examined respondents in
the third administrative review and
assigned a dumping margin of zero to
the separate rate respondents other than
Huahui.9 The Department declined to
reconsider Huahui’s dumping margin on
remand, and, therefore, continued to
assign the previous rate of $0.44/kg.10
Upon review of the Department’s First
Remand Redetermination, the CIT
sustained the Department’s assignment
of the zero dumping margins to Shanxi
DMD and GHC/BPAC, as well as the
Department’s assignment of a $0.44/kg
dumping margin to Huahui.11 On
December 5, 2014, the Department
issued amended final results notifying
the public that the final judgment in the
case, with respect to Shanxi DMD and
GHC/BPAC, was not in harmony with
the AR3 Final Results. Accordingly, the
Department revised the weighted4 Id. at 67145 and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 2–7.
5 Plaintiffs were Huahui and its affiliated U.S.
importer Albemarle Corporation; Shanxi DMD
Corporation (Shanxi DMD); and Ningxia Guanghua
Cherishmet Activated Carbon Company and Beijing
Pacific Activated Carbon Products Company, Ltd.
(GHC/BPAC) and their affiliated U.S. importer
Cherishmet Inc.
6 Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 931 F. Supp.
2d 1280 (CIT 2013) (Albemarle I).
7 Id. at 1296–97.
8 Id. at 1293.
9 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Albemarle Corp. v. United States,
Consol. Ct. No. 11–00451 at 13 (January 9, 2014)
(First Remand Redetermination).
10 Id. at 22.
11 Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 27 F. Supp.
3d 1336, 1352 (CIT 2014) (Albemarle II).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
average dumping margins for Shanxi
DMD and GHC/BPAC to zero dollars per
kilogram.12
Multiple parties appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). The
Federal Circuit, in Albemarle III,
affirmed the CIT’s judgment sustaining
the Department’s First Remand
Redetermination with respect to Shanxi
DMD and GHC/BPAC, but reversed the
CIT’s judgment as to the $0.44/kg
dumping margin assigned to Huahui.13
Specifically, with regard to Huahui, the
Federal Circuit found that, given
Huahui’s history of dumping in the
immediately preceding review, the
Department had substantial evidence to
support a determination that averaging
the zero and de minimis rates assigned
to the mandatory respondents may not
reasonably reflect Huahui’s potential
dumping margin during the POR.14
Nonetheless, although the Federal
Circuit held that the Department was
entitled to use ‘‘other reasonable
methods’’ in assigning a rate to Huahui,
the Federal Circuit found that the
chosen method of carrying forward
Huahui’s data from the second
administrative review was
unreasonable.15 In particular, citing the
statute’s preference for contemporaneity
in periodic administrative reviews, the
Federal Circuit held that ‘‘Commerce
could not on this record utilize data
from the previous review,’’ and, ‘‘having
declined to collect additional
information, was required to follow the
‘expected method’ of utilizing the de
minimis margins of the individually
examined respondents from the
contemporaneous period.’’ 16 The
Federal Circuit remanded the case to the
CIT to issue appropriate instructions to
the Department regarding the dumping
margin to be assigned to Huahui.17
The CIT, in turn, remanded the issue
to the Department with the instruction
to ‘‘redetermine a margin for Huahui in
accordance with the holding of the
Court of Appeals in Albemarle III.’’ 18 In
its Second Remand Redetermination,
12 Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With Final Results of Administrative
Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009–
2010, 79 FR 72165 (December 5, 2014) (Amended
AR3 Final Results).
13 Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United
States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Albemarle
III).
14 Id. at 1355.
15 Id. at 1355–56.
16 Id. at 1359.
17 Id.
18 See Albemarle Corp. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 11–00451, Slip Op. 16–84 (CIT
September 7, 2016) at 5–6.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Department averaged the zero and
de minimis rates calculated for the
individually-examined respondents in
the third administrative review and
assigned the resulting zero dumping
margin to Huahui.19 On April 27, 2017,
the CIT sustained the Second Remand
Redetermination and entered judgment
accordingly.20 The CIT’s judgment in
Albemarle IV constitutes a final
decision that is not in harmony with the
Department’s AR3 Final Results and the
Amended AR3 Final Results.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,21 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,22 the
Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to
section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), the
Department must publish a notice of a
court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’
with a Department determination and
must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.
This notice is published in fulfillment
of the publication requirement of
Timken. Accordingly, the Department
will continue the suspension of
liquidation of the subject merchandise
at issue in the Second Remand
Redetermination and Albemarle IV
pending expiration of the period to
appeal or, if appealed, a final and
conclusive court decision.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision, the Department amends the
AR3 Final Results with respect to
Huahui. Based on the Second Remand
Redetermination, as affirmed by the
Court in Albemarle IV, the revised
weighted-average dumping margin for
Huahui for the period April 1, 2009,
through March 31, 2010, is zero.
In the event that the CIT’s ruling is
not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld
by a final and conclusive court decision,
the Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to assess
antidumping duties on unliquidated
entries of subject merchandise based on
the revised dumping margin listed
above.
19 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Albemarle Corp. et al. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 11–00451, Slip Op. 16–
84 (CIT September 7, 2016) (Second Remand
Redetermination).
20 See Albemarle Corp. et al. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 11–00451, Slip Op. 17–51 (CIT
April 27, 2017) (Albemarle IV).
21 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337,
341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
22 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because there have been subsequent
administrative reviews for Huahui, the
cash deposit rate for Huahui will remain
the rate established in the recentlycompleted AR8 Final Results, which is
$1.36/kg.23
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 5, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2017–09578 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket No.: 170331340–7340–01]
National Cybersecurity Center of
Excellence (NCCoE) Trusted
Geolocation in the Cloud Building
Block
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
invites organizations to provide
products and technical expertise to
support and demonstrate security
platforms for the Trusted Geolocation in
the Cloud Building Block. This notice is
the initial step for the National
Cybersecurity Center of Excellence
(NCCoE) in collaborating with
technology companies to address
cybersecurity challenges identified
under the Trusted Geolocation in the
Cloud Building Block. Participation in
the building block is open to all
interested organizations.
DATES: Interested parties must contact
NIST to request a letter of interest
template to be completed and submitted
to NIST. Letters of interest will be
accepted on a first come, first served
basis. Collaborative activities will
commence as soon as enough completed
and signed letters of interest have been
returned to address all the necessary
components and capabilities, but no
earlier than June 12, 2017. When the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
23 See Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015, 81 FR
62088, 62089 (September 8, 2016) (AR8 Final
Results).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
building block has been completed,
NIST will post a notice on the NCCoE
Trusted Geolocation in the Cloud Web
site at https://nccoe.nist.gov/projects/
building_blocks/trusted_geolocation_in_
the_cloud announcing the completion of
the building block and informing the
public that it will no longer accept
letters of interest for this building block.
ADDRESSES: The NCCoE is located at
9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville,
MD 20850. Letters of interest must be
submitted to trusted-cloud-nccoe@
nist.gov or via hardcopy to National
Institute of Standards and Technology,
100 Bureau Drive Mail Stop 2002
Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Organizations
whose letters of interest are accepted in
accordance with the process set forth in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this notice will be asked to sign a
Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement (CRADA) with NIST. A
CRADA template can be found at:
https://nccoe.nist.gov/library/nccoeconsortium-crada-example.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Bartock and Murugiah Souppaya
via email to trusted-cloud-nccoe@
nist.gov; by telephone 301–975–5358; or
by mail to National Institute of
Standards and Technology, NCCoE; 100
Bureau Drive Mail Stop 2002
Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Additional
details about the Trusted Geolocation in
the Cloud Building Block are available
at: https://nccoe.nist.gov/projects/
building_blocks/trusted_geolocation_in_
the_cloud.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The NCCoE, part of
NIST, is a public-private collaboration
for accelerating the widespread
adoption of integrated cybersecurity
tools and technologies. The NCCoE
brings together experts from industry,
government, and academia under one
roof to develop practical, interoperable
cybersecurity approaches that address
the real-world needs of complex
Information Technology (IT) systems.
By accelerating dissemination and use
of these integrated tools and
technologies for protecting IT assets, the
NCCoE will enhance trust in U.S. IT
communications, data, and storage
systems; reduce risk for companies and
individuals using IT systems; and
encourage development of innovative,
job-creating cybersecurity products and
services.
Process: NIST is soliciting responses
from all sources of relevant security
capabilities (see below) to enter into a
Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement (CRADA) to provide
products and technical expertise to
support and demonstrate security
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21979
platforms for the Trusted Geolocation in
the Cloud Building Block. The full
building block can be viewed at: https://
nccoe.nist.gov/projects/building_blocks/
trusted_geolocation_in_the_cloud.
Interested parties should contact NIST
using the information provided in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice. NIST will then
provide each interested party with a
letter of interest template, which the
party must complete, certify that it is
accurate, and submit to NIST. NIST will
contact interested parties if there are
questions regarding the responsiveness
of the letters of interest to the building
block objective or requirements
identified below. NIST will select
participants who have submitted
complete letters of interest on a first
come, first served basis within each
category of product components or
capabilities listed below up to the
number of participants in each category
necessary to carry out this building
block. However, there may be
continuing opportunity to participate
even after initial activity commences.
Selected participants will be required to
enter into a consortium CRADA with
NIST (for reference, see ADDRESSES
section above). NIST published a notice
in the Federal Register on October 19,
2012 (77 FR 64314), inviting U.S.
companies to enter into National
Cybersecurity Excellence Partnerships
(NCEPs) in furtherance of the NCCoE.
For this demonstration project, NCEP
partners will not be given priority for
participation.
Building Block Objective: The
building block provides details about
the implementation of trusted resource
pools to aggregate trusted systems and
segregate them from untrusted
resources, which results in the
separation of higher-value, more
sensitive workloads from commodity
application and data workloads. A
detailed description of the Trusted
Geolocation in the Cloud Building Block
is available at: https://nccoe.nist.gov/
projects/building_blocks/trusted_
geolocation_in_the_cloud.
Requirements: Each responding
organization’s letter of interest should
identify which security platform
component(s) or capability(ies) it is
offering. Letters of interest should not
include company proprietary
information, and all components and
capabilities must be commercially
available. Components are listed in
section 5 of the Trusted Geolocation in
the Cloud Building Block (for reference,
please see the link in the PROCESS
section above) and include, but are not
limited to:
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21977-21979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09578]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-904]
Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results With Respect
to Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Company, Ltd.
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 27, 2017, the Court of International Trade (CIT)
issued its final judgment, sustaining the Department of Commerce's (the
Department's) remand results pertaining to the third administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from
the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of review
(POR) of April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010. The Department is
notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in
harmony with the final results of the administrative review, and that
the Department is amending the final results with respect to Ningxia
Huahui Activated Carbon Company, Ltd. (Huahui).
DATES: Effective Date: May 7, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations
Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
9068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 31, 2011, the Department issued the AR3 Final Results in
its review of certain activated carbon from the PRC,\1\ in which the
Department calculated zero and de minimis weighted-average dumping
margins for the individually-examined respondents.\2\ In the AR3 Final
Results, the Department determined that averaging the individually-
examined respondents' zero and de minimis rates to establish separate
rates for non-selected exporters would not be reasonably reflective of
potential dumping margins during the POR.\3\ In
[[Page 21978]]
particular, the Department assigned to Huahui the $0.44/kg dumping
margin it had assigned Huahui as an individually-examined respondent in
the second administrative review, and assigned to all other separate
rate respondents a dumping margin of $0.28/kg, which was the margin the
Department had assigned to separate rate respondents in the second
administrative review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142 (October 31, 2011) (AR3 Final
Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
\2\ The individually examined respondents were Jacobi Carbons AB
and Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.
\3\ See AR3 Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 5.
\4\ Id. at 67145 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at 2-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain separate rate respondents and their respective U.S.
importers \5\ challenged the Department's separate rate determinations
in the CIT.\6\ The CIT, in Albemarle I, remanded the Department's
determination with regard to the separate rates assigned to Shanxi DMD
and GHC/BPAC, and ordered the Department to reconsider its assignment
of the $0.28/kg dumping margin to those separate rate respondents.\7\
The CIT reserved any decision regarding whether the $0.44/kg dumping
margin assigned to Huahui was permissible until its review of the
Department's remand redetermination.\8\ On remand following Albemarle
I, the Department, under protest, averaged the zero and de minimis
margins assigned to the individually-examined respondents in the third
administrative review and assigned a dumping margin of zero to the
separate rate respondents other than Huahui.\9\ The Department declined
to reconsider Huahui's dumping margin on remand, and, therefore,
continued to assign the previous rate of $0.44/kg.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Plaintiffs were Huahui and its affiliated U.S. importer
Albemarle Corporation; Shanxi DMD Corporation (Shanxi DMD); and
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Company and Beijing
Pacific Activated Carbon Products Company, Ltd. (GHC/BPAC) and their
affiliated U.S. importer Cherishmet Inc.
\6\ Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 931 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (CIT
2013) (Albemarle I).
\7\ Id. at 1296-97.
\8\ Id. at 1293.
\9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Albemarle Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 11-00451
at 13 (January 9, 2014) (First Remand Redetermination).
\10\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon review of the Department's First Remand Redetermination, the
CIT sustained the Department's assignment of the zero dumping margins
to Shanxi DMD and GHC/BPAC, as well as the Department's assignment of a
$0.44/kg dumping margin to Huahui.\11\ On December 5, 2014, the
Department issued amended final results notifying the public that the
final judgment in the case, with respect to Shanxi DMD and GHC/BPAC,
was not in harmony with the AR3 Final Results. Accordingly, the
Department revised the weighted-average dumping margins for Shanxi DMD
and GHC/BPAC to zero dollars per kilogram.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 27 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1352
(CIT 2014) (Albemarle II).
\12\ Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-2010, 79 FR 72165
(December 5, 2014) (Amended AR3 Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple parties appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). The Federal Circuit, in
Albemarle III, affirmed the CIT's judgment sustaining the Department's
First Remand Redetermination with respect to Shanxi DMD and GHC/BPAC,
but reversed the CIT's judgment as to the $0.44/kg dumping margin
assigned to Huahui.\13\ Specifically, with regard to Huahui, the
Federal Circuit found that, given Huahui's history of dumping in the
immediately preceding review, the Department had substantial evidence
to support a determination that averaging the zero and de minimis rates
assigned to the mandatory respondents may not reasonably reflect
Huahui's potential dumping margin during the POR.\14\ Nonetheless,
although the Federal Circuit held that the Department was entitled to
use ``other reasonable methods'' in assigning a rate to Huahui, the
Federal Circuit found that the chosen method of carrying forward
Huahui's data from the second administrative review was
unreasonable.\15\ In particular, citing the statute's preference for
contemporaneity in periodic administrative reviews, the Federal Circuit
held that ``Commerce could not on this record utilize data from the
previous review,'' and, ``having declined to collect additional
information, was required to follow the `expected method' of utilizing
the de minimis margins of the individually examined respondents from
the contemporaneous period.'' \16\ The Federal Circuit remanded the
case to the CIT to issue appropriate instructions to the Department
regarding the dumping margin to be assigned to Huahui.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Albemarle III).
\14\ Id. at 1355.
\15\ Id. at 1355-56.
\16\ Id. at 1359.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT, in turn, remanded the issue to the Department with the
instruction to ``redetermine a margin for Huahui in accordance with the
holding of the Court of Appeals in Albemarle III.'' \18\ In its Second
Remand Redetermination, the Department averaged the zero and de minimis
rates calculated for the individually-examined respondents in the third
administrative review and assigned the resulting zero dumping margin to
Huahui.\19\ On April 27, 2017, the CIT sustained the Second Remand
Redetermination and entered judgment accordingly.\20\ The CIT's
judgment in Albemarle IV constitutes a final decision that is not in
harmony with the Department's AR3 Final Results and the Amended AR3
Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Albemarle Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11-
00451, Slip Op. 16-84 (CIT September 7, 2016) at 5-6.
\19\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Albemarle Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No.
11-00451, Slip Op. 16-84 (CIT September 7, 2016) (Second Remand
Redetermination).
\20\ See Albemarle Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court
No. 11-00451, Slip Op. 17-51 (CIT April 27, 2017) (Albemarle IV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\21\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\22\ the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section
516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department
must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony''
with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
\22\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication
requirement of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the
suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise at issue in the
Second Remand Redetermination and Albemarle IV pending expiration of
the period to appeal or, if appealed, a final and conclusive court
decision.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department amends
the AR3 Final Results with respect to Huahui. Based on the Second
Remand Redetermination, as affirmed by the Court in Albemarle IV, the
revised weighted-average dumping margin for Huahui for the period April
1, 2009, through March 31, 2010, is zero.
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed,
is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping
duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the
revised dumping margin listed above.
[[Page 21979]]
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for
Huahui, the cash deposit rate for Huahui will remain the rate
established in the recently-completed AR8 Final Results, which is
$1.36/kg.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2014-2015, 81 FR 62088, 62089 (September 8, 2016) (AR8 Final
Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 5, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2017-09578 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
