Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review, Notice of Re-conduct of Administrative Review of Grobest & I Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review, 63786-63787 [2012-25579]

Download as PDF 63786 Notices Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 201 Wednesday, October 17, 2012 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency statements of organization and functions are examples of documents appearing in this section. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–552–802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review, Notice of Reconduct of Administrative Review of Grobest & I Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review On September 13, 2012, the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘Court’’) entered final judgment following its decision in Grobest II, 1 regarding the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (‘‘shrimp’’) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) for the period covering February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009.2 Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) in Timken,3 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,4 the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department’s Final Results and is amending the Final Results. The Department is also notifying the public that it is re- mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: 1 See Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 2012–100 (July 31, 2012) (‘‘Grobest II’’). 2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, as amended by Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 61122 (October 4,2010) (‘‘Final Results’’). 3 See Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’). 4 Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:49 Oct 16, 2012 Jkt 229001 conducting the 2008/2009 antidumping duty administrative review of Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’) pursuant to the CIT’s order. DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Pulongbarit, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4031. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 9, 2010, the Department issued its Final Results. In the Final Results, the Department determined not to examine Grobest as a voluntary respondent and rejected Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.’s (‘‘Amanda Foods’’) untimely separate rate certification (‘‘SRC’’).5 In Grobest I, the CIT remanded the Final Results to the Department to, inter alia, reconsider its denial of Grobest’s voluntary respondent request and to accept Amanda Foods’ SRC.6 On April 30, 2012, the Department filed its remand results, in which it determined that individually reviewing Grobest as a voluntary respondent would have been unduly burdensome and would have inhibited the timely completion of the administrative review. The Department also accepted Amanda Foods’ SRC, per the Court’s instruction. On July 31, 2012, the Court sustained the Department’s remand results regarding Amanda Foods’ SRC, but remanded the Department’s rejection of Grobest’s request for voluntary respondent status and ordered the Department to conduct an individual review of Grobest as a voluntary respondent and to reconsider Grobest’s revocation request in light of the results of that review.7 Following the Court’s remand order in Grobest II, the Government moved the Court to enter final judgment so that the Department could re-conduct the administrative review of Grobest under section 751(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The Court granted this motion and ordered the Department to re-conduct the administrative review of Grobest by individually investigating Grobest as a voluntary respondent and 5 See Final Results. Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, 36 CIT, 2d 1342 (2012) (‘‘Grobest I’’). 7 See Grobest II. 6 See PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 reconsidering Grobest’s request for revocation in light of the results of that review. The Court also ordered the Department to treat the review of Grobest as being conducted pursuant to the deadlines listed in section 751(a)(3) of the Act, calculating the deadlines beginning from the date of the entry of final judgment. Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, 8 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC 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. The CIT’s September 13, 2012, judgment sustaining the Department’s remand redetermination to accept Amanda Foods’ SRC and remand to individually review Grobest constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department’ Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. Notice of Re-Conduct of Review of Grobest Pursuant to the Court’s final judgment, the Department will reconduct the 2008/2009 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Vietnam on Grobest. The Department will conduct the administrative review according to the deadlines listed in Section 751(a)(3) of the Act, calculating the deadlines beginning from the date the final judgment was entered, i.e., September 13, 2012. The Department will also reconsider Grobest’s request for revocation within the context of that review. Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the Final Results, the Department amends its 8 See E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM Timken, 893 F.2d at 341. 17OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices Final Results. The Department finds the following revised margin to exist: initiated the second sunset review of the AD order on pure magnesium in granular form from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER as amended (‘‘the Act’’).1 SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM The Department conducted an expedited sunset review of the order. As Margin Exporter (percent) a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the AD Amanda Foods (Vietnam) order on pure magnesium in granular Ltd. .................................... 3.92 form from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of The Department also amends the dumping and notified the ITC of the Final Results by announcing that it is re- magnitude of the margins likely to conducting the administrative review of prevail were the order to be revoked.2 Grobest, pursuant to the Court’s On October 1, 2012, the ITC September 13, 2012, order. published its determination, pursuant to This notice is issued and published in section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), of the AD order on pure magnesium in 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. granular form from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or Dated: October 10, 2012. recurrence of material injury to an Paul Piquado, industry in the United States within a Assistant Secretary for Import reasonably foreseeable time.3 Administration. [FR Doc. 2012–25579 Filed 10–16–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–864] Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of determinations by the Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) and the International Trade Commission (the ‘‘ITC’’) that revocation of the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) order on pure magnesium in granular form from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, or to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of the AD order. DATES: Effective Date: October 17, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Eugene Degnan, AD/ CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4243 and (202) 482–0414, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 1, 2012, the Department mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:49 Oct 16, 2012 Jkt 229001 Scope of the Order There is an existing AD order on pure magnesium from the PRC.4 The scope of this order excludes pure magnesium that is already covered by the existing order on pure magnesium in ingot form, and currently classifiable under item numbers 8104.11.00 and 8104.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). The scope of this order includes imports of pure magnesium products, regardless of chemistry, including, without limitation, raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, and briquettes, except as noted above. Pure magnesium includes: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 percent primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as ‘‘ultra pure’’ magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as ‘‘pure’’ magnesium); (3) chemical combinations of pure magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an ‘‘ASTM Specification for 1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 77 FR 4995 (February 1, 2012) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 2 See Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 33165 (June 5, 2012). 3 See Pure Magnesium (Granular) from China (Inv. No. 731–TA–895 (Second Review)), 77 FR 59979 (October 1, 2012). 4 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium From the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995). PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 63787 Magnesium Alloy’’ 5 (generally referred to as ‘‘off specification pure’’ magnesium); and (4) physical mixtures of pure magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight. Excluded from this order are mixtures containing 90 percent or less pure magnesium by weight and one or more of certain nonmagnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures. The non-magnesium granular materials of which the Department is aware used to make such excluded reagents are: Lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, aluminum, alumina (Al2O3), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomitic lime, and colemanite. A party importing a magnesium-based reagent which includes one or more materials not on this list is required to seek a scope clarification from the Department before such a mixture may be imported free of antidumping duties. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under item 8104.30.00 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.6 Continuation of the Order As a result of these determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD order on pure magnesium in granular form would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD order on pure magnesium in granular form from the PRC. 5 The meaning of this term is the same as that used by the American Society for Testing and Materials in its Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys. 6 The Department has issued four scope rulings with respect to pure magnesium in granular form. See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anticircumvention Inquiries, 68 FR 7772, 7774 (February 18, 2003); Memorandum to the File ‘‘Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People’s Republic of China: Final Scope Ruling: ESM Group Inc.,’’ dated September 18, 2006; Memorandum to Christian Marsh, ‘‘Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People’s Republic of China: Final Scope Ruling on Granular Magnesium Ground in Mexico,’’ dated October 27, 2011; Memorandum to Christian Marsh, ‘‘Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People’s Republic of China: Final Scope Ruling for ESM Group Inc. (Atomized Magnesium),’’ dated October 28, 2011. E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63786-63787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25579]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / 
Notices

[[Page 63786]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-802]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Administrative Review, Notice of Re-conduct of Administrative Review of 
Grobest & I Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., and Notice of Amended 
Final Results of Administrative Review

SUMMARY: On September 13, 2012, the United States Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'' or ``Court'') entered final judgment 
following its decision in Grobest II, \1\ regarding the final results 
of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain frozen 
warmwater shrimp (``shrimp'') from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(``Vietnam'') for the period covering February 1, 2008, through January 
31, 2009.\2\ Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') in Timken,\3\ as 
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\4\ the Department is notifying the 
public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the 
Department's Final Results and is amending the Final Results. The 
Department is also notifying the public that it is re-conducting the 
2008/2009 antidumping duty administrative review of Grobest & I-Mei 
Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (``Grobest'') pursuant to the CIT's 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. v. United 
States, Slip Op. 2012-100 (July 31, 2012) (``Grobest II'').
    \2\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 
2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, as amended 
by Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 61122 (October 4,2010) (``Final Results'').
    \3\ See Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (``Timken'').
    \4\ Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 
1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Diamond Sawblades'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Pulongbarit, Office 9, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 9, 2010, the Department issued its 
Final Results. In the Final Results, the Department determined not to 
examine Grobest as a voluntary respondent and rejected Amanda Foods 
(Vietnam) Ltd.'s (``Amanda Foods'') untimely separate rate 
certification (``SRC'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Grobest I, the CIT remanded the Final Results to the Department 
to, inter alia, reconsider its denial of Grobest's voluntary respondent 
request and to accept Amanda Foods' SRC.\6\ On April 30, 2012, the 
Department filed its remand results, in which it determined that 
individually reviewing Grobest as a voluntary respondent would have 
been unduly burdensome and would have inhibited the timely completion 
of the administrative review. The Department also accepted Amanda 
Foods' SRC, per the Court's instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. v. United 
States, 36 CIT, 2d 1342 (2012) (``Grobest I'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 31, 2012, the Court sustained the Department's remand 
results regarding Amanda Foods' SRC, but remanded the Department's 
rejection of Grobest's request for voluntary respondent status and 
ordered the Department to conduct an individual review of Grobest as a 
voluntary respondent and to reconsider Grobest's revocation request in 
light of the results of that review.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Grobest II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the Court's remand order in Grobest II, the Government 
moved the Court to enter final judgment so that the Department could 
re-conduct the administrative review of Grobest under section 751(a)(3) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The Court granted this motion 
and ordered the Department to re-conduct the administrative review of 
Grobest by individually investigating Grobest as a voluntary respondent 
and reconsidering Grobest's request for revocation in light of the 
results of that review. The Court also ordered the Department to treat 
the review of Grobest as being conducted pursuant to the deadlines 
listed in section 751(a)(3) of the Act, calculating the deadlines 
beginning from the date of the entry of final judgment.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, \8\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 
the CAFC 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. The CIT's September 13, 2012, judgment 
sustaining the Department's remand redetermination to accept Amanda 
Foods' SRC and remand to individually review Grobest constitutes a 
final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the 
Department' Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of 
the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department 
will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise 
pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or if appealed, pending 
a final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice of Re-Conduct of Review of Grobest

    Pursuant to the Court's final judgment, the Department will re-
conduct the 2008/2009 administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on shrimp from Vietnam on Grobest. The Department will conduct 
the administrative review according to the deadlines listed in Section 
751(a)(3) of the Act, calculating the deadlines beginning from the date 
the final judgment was entered, i.e., September 13, 2012. The 
Department will also reconsider Grobest's request for revocation within 
the context of that review.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the 
Final Results, the Department amends its

[[Page 63787]]

Final Results. The Department finds the following revised margin to 
exist:

              Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                        Exporter                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd..............................            3.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also amends the Final Results by announcing that it 
is re-conducting the administrative review of Grobest, pursuant to the 
Court's September 13, 2012, order.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 10, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-25579 Filed 10-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P