Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 30271-30272 [2013-12223]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Notices
company has indicated that a
notification of proposed production
activity will be submitted. Any such
notifications will be published
separately for public comment. The
proposed subzone would be subject to
the existing activation limit of FTZ 247.
In accordance with the Board’s
regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the
FTZ Staff is designated examiner to
review the application and make
recommendations to the Executive
Secretary.
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions shall be
addressed to the Board’s Executive
Secretary at the address below. The
closing period for their receipt is July 1,
2013. Rebuttal comments in response to
material submitted during the foregoing
period may be submitted during the
subsequent 15-day period to July 16,
2013.
A copy of the application will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room
21013, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the
‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s
Web site, which is accessible via
www.trade.gov/ftz.
For further information, contact
Elizabeth Whiteman at
Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202)
482–0473.
Dated: May 16, 2013.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–12221 Filed 5–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–423–808, A–791–805, C–791–806, A–583–
830]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan:
Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and
Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling
Pursuant to Court Decision
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 7, 2012, the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a
decision not in harmony with the final
determination of the Department of
Commerce (the Department) that
stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from
Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan with
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
a nominal thickness of 4.75 millimeters
(mm), but an actual thickness of less
than 4.75 mm, is subject to the AD and
CVD Orders on SSPC.1 On March 26,
2013, the United States Court of
International Trade (CIT) sustained the
Department’s results of redetermination
issued in accordance with the CAFC’s
decision in ArcelorMittal.2 Those results
of redetermination found that SSPC
with an actual thickness of less than
4.75 mm, regardless of its nominal
thickness, is not subject to the AD and
CVD Orders on SSPC.3 Consistent with
the CAFC’s decision in Timken Co. v.
United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades), the Department
is notifying the public that the final
CAFC judgment in this case is not in
harmony with the Department’s final
determination and is amending its Final
Scope Ruling concerning SSPC with a
1 See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v.
United States, 694 F.3d 82 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(ArcelorMittal). Because the description of the
scopes in the multiple SSPC orders is identical and
given the nature of the inquiry, the Department has
considered it appropriate pursuant to 19 CFR
351.225(m) to conduct a single inquiry and issue a
single scope ruling that applies to all such orders.
See Notice of Amended Final Determinations:
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium and
South Africa; and Notice of Countervailing Duty
Orders: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium,
Italy and South Africa, 64 FR 25288 (May 11, 1999);
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 64 FR
27756 (May 21, 1999); Notice of Amended
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68 FR
11520 (March 11, 2003); and Notice of Amended
Countervailing Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, and South
Africa, 68 FR 11524 (March 11, 2003) (collectively,
AD and CVD Orders). The antidumping orders on
SSPC from Italy and South Korea and the
countervailing duty order on Belgium were revoked
effective August 31, 2011, November 16, 2011, and
July 18, 2010, respectively. See Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils From Italy: Revocation of Antidumping
Duty Order, 76 FR 54207 (August 31, 2011); Notice
of Implementation of Determination Under Section
129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and
Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the Republic of
Korea; and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils From the Republic of Korea, 76 FR 74771
(December 1, 2011); Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
from Belgium: Final Results of Full Sunset Review
and Revocation of the Countervailing Duty Order,
76 FR 25666 (May 5, 2011).
2 See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v.
United States, Court No. 08–00434 (Ct. Int’l Trade
Mar. 26, 2013) (memorandum and order) (Final CIT
Order).
3 See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
Remand, dated February 15, 2013 (Second Remand
Redetermination).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30271
nominal thickness of 4.75 mm, but an
actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm.4
DATES: Effective Date: September 17,
2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, Import Administration—
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)
482–3965.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Having
received a scope inquiry request from
ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V.
(AMS Belgium),5 the Department, on
December 3, 2008, issued its Final
Scope Ruling in which it relied upon 19
CFR 351.225(k)(2) to determine that
SSPC with a nominal thickness of
4.75mm, but with an actual thickness
less than 4.75mm, is included within
the scope of the AD and CVD Orders.6
Following a request for a voluntary
remand, the CIT remanded the Final
Scope Ruling to the Department to
reconsider whether SSPC with a
nominal thickness of 4.75 mm, but an
actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm,
is subject to the AD and CVD Orders.7
In remanding the case, the Court
directed the Department to apply 19
CFR 351.225, in conjunction with the
decisions of the CAFC in Duferco Inc. v.
United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir.
2002), and Tak Fat Trading Co. v.
United States, 396 F. 3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2005).8
On remand, the Department reexamined the language of the scope and,
based in part upon interpreting the
language in the context of the SSPC
industry, determined it to be ambiguous
as to whether it covers SSPC with a
nominal thickness of 4.75 mm, but an
actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm.9
Having found the scope language
ambiguous, the Department then
analyzed the criteria specified by 19
CFR 351.225(k)(1), i.e., ‘‘descriptions of
the merchandise contained in the
petition, the initial investigation, and
the determinations of the Secretary
(including prior scope determinations)
and the {International Trade
4 See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium:
Final Scope Ruling, dated December 3, 2008 (Final
Scope Ruling).
5 Formerly known as Ugine & ALZ Belgium N.V.
(U&A) and currently known as Aperam Stainless
Belgium A.V.
6 See Final Scope Ruling at 13–14.
7 See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v.
United States, Court No. 08–00434 (Ct. Int’l Trade
Mar. 30, 2010) (remand order).
8 See id. at 1–2.
9 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Remand, dated July 29, 2010 (First Remand
Redetermination), at 5–8, 16–17.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
30272
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Notices
Commission},’’ and found those to be
non-dispositive as well.10 The
Department thus reincorporated its
earlier analysis under 19 CFR
351.225(k)(2) to conclude that SSPC
with a nominal thickness greater than or
equal to 4.75 mm regardless of the
actual thickness is included within the
scope of the AD and CVD Orders.11
On July 12, 2011, the CIT sustained
the Department’s First Remand
Redetermination.12 AMS Belgium
appealed the CIT’s final judgment to the
CAFC.
On September 7, 2012, the CAFC
reversed the CIT’s judgment. The CAFC
concluded that substantial evidence did
not support the Department’s
determination that the language of the
SSPC orders is ambiguous and held that
‘‘the plain meaning of the orders
regarding the 4.75 mm thickness is a
reference to actual thickness of products
subject to the orders.’’ 13
On January 4, 2013, the CIT issued a
remand order directing the Department
to take action in accordance with the
CAFC’s decision in ArcelorMittal and to
find that SSPC with an actual thickness
of less than 4.75 mm is outside the
scope of the AD and CVD Orders.14
Pursuant to that order, the Department
construed the scope of the AD and CVD
Orders so that SSPC from Belgium with
an actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm
is not subject to the AD and CVD Orders
on SSPC, regardless of its nominal
thickness.15 The CIT sustained the
Department’s remand redetermination
on March 26, 2013.16
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
the CAFC has 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 CAFC’s September 7, 2012,
judgment in ArcelorMittal constitutes a
final decision of that court that is not in
harmony with the Department’s Final
Scope Ruling. This notice is published
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10 See
id. at 8–12, 22–24.
id. at 25.
12 See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belg. N.V. v. United
States, Court No. 08–00434, Slip Op. 11–82 (Ct. Int’l
Trade July 12, 2011).
13 See ArcelorMittal, 694 F.3d at 88–90.
14 See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v.
United States, Court No. 08–00434 (Ct. Int’l Trade
Jan. 4, 2013) (remand order).
15 See Second Remand Determination at 6–7, 10.
16 See Final CIT Order.
11 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
in fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Scope Ruling
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to SSPC with an
actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm,
the Department amends its Final Scope
Ruling and now finds that the scope of
the AD and CVD Orders excludes SSPC
with an actual thickness of less than
4.75 mm, regardless of its nominal
thickness. Accordingly, the Department
will issue revised instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: May 14, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013–12223 Filed 5–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–351–838]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from Brazil: Notice of Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2012–2013
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate
Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4929 or (202) 482–
4007, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On February 1, 2013, the Department
of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register a
notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review’’ of the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil
for the period of review (POR) of
February 1, 2012, through January 31,
2013.1 The Department received a
timely request from the Ad Hoc Shrimp
Trade Action Committee (Domestic
Producers) in accordance with 19 CFR
1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 78 FR 7397
(February 1, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
351.213(b), for an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from
Brazil. On March 29, 2013, the
Department published a notice of
initiation of an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil
with respect to two companies.2
The Department stated in its initiation
of this review that it intended to rely on
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) data to select respondents.3
However, our review of the CBP
database, with respect to the companies
for which this review was requested,
showed no entries of subject
merchandise during the POR.4 We
released the results of our CBP data
query to the Domestic Producers, the
only interested party to this segment of
the proceeding, and invited them to
comment on the CBP data. We received
no comments on the CBP data.
On April 4, 2013, we sent a ‘‘No
Shipments Inquiry’’ to CBP to confirm
that there were no shipments or entries
of subject merchandise during the POR
from the companies subject to review.
We received no information from CBP to
contradict the results of our data query.
On April 29, 2013, we stated that
because information from CBP indicates
that there were no entries of subject
merchandise during the POR from the
companies covered by this review, we
intend to rescind this review.5 We
invited parties to comment on our intent
to rescind this administrative review.
We did not receive comments from any
interested party.
Rescission of Review
Section 351.213(d)(3) of the
Department’s regulations stipulates that
the Secretary may rescind an
administrative review if there were no
entries, exports, or sales of the subject
merchandise during the POR. As there
were no entries, exports, or sales of the
subject merchandise during the POR, we
are rescinding this review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). We
intend to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of this notice of rescission
of administrative review.
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 78 FR 19197 (March
29, 2013).
3 See id.
4 See April 3, 2013, Memorandum to the File
entitled ‘‘Release of Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) Data.’’
5 See April 29, 2013, Memorandum to James
Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations,
entitled ‘‘Intent to Rescind Administrative Review.’’
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30271-30272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12223]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-423-808, A-791-805, C-791-806, A-583-830]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, South Africa, and
Taiwan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling
and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 7, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision not in harmony with the
final determination of the Department of Commerce (the Department) that
stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium, South Africa, and
Taiwan with a nominal thickness of 4.75 millimeters (mm), but an actual
thickness of less than 4.75 mm, is subject to the AD and CVD Orders on
SSPC.\1\ On March 26, 2013, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department's results of redetermination
issued in accordance with the CAFC's decision in ArcelorMittal.\2\
Those results of redetermination found that SSPC with an actual
thickness of less than 4.75 mm, regardless of its nominal thickness, is
not subject to the AD and CVD Orders on SSPC.\3\ Consistent with the
CAFC's decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), the
Department is notifying the public that the final CAFC judgment in this
case is not in harmony with the Department's final determination and is
amending its Final Scope Ruling concerning SSPC with a nominal
thickness of 4.75 mm, but an actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. United States,
694 F.3d 82 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (ArcelorMittal). Because the
description of the scopes in the multiple SSPC orders is identical
and given the nature of the inquiry, the Department has considered
it appropriate pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(m) to conduct a single
inquiry and issue a single scope ruling that applies to all such
orders. See Notice of Amended Final Determinations: Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils from Belgium and South Africa; and Notice of
Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium, Italy and South Africa, 64 FR 25288 (May 11, 1999);
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and
Taiwan, 64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999); Notice of Amended Antidumping
Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium,
Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68
FR 11520 (March 11, 2003); and Notice of Amended Countervailing Duty
Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy,
and South Africa, 68 FR 11524 (March 11, 2003) (collectively, AD and
CVD Orders). The antidumping orders on SSPC from Italy and South
Korea and the countervailing duty order on Belgium were revoked
effective August 31, 2011, November 16, 2011, and July 18, 2010,
respectively. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Italy:
Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 54207 (August 31, 2011);
Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocation of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the Republic of Korea;
and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea, 76 FR
74771 (December 1, 2011); Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium: Final Results of Full Sunset Review and Revocation of the
Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 25666 (May 5, 2011).
\2\ See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. United States,
Court No. 08-00434 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 26, 2013) (memorandum and
order) (Final CIT Order).
\3\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, dated
February 15, 2013 (Second Remand Redetermination).
\4\ See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Scope
Ruling, dated December 3, 2008 (Final Scope Ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 17, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, Import Administration--International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3965.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Having received a scope inquiry request from
ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. (AMS Belgium),\5\ the Department,
on December 3, 2008, issued its Final Scope Ruling in which it relied
upon 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2) to determine that SSPC with a nominal
thickness of 4.75mm, but with an actual thickness less than 4.75mm, is
included within the scope of the AD and CVD Orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Formerly known as Ugine & ALZ Belgium N.V. (U&A) and
currently known as Aperam Stainless Belgium A.V.
\6\ See Final Scope Ruling at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following a request for a voluntary remand, the CIT remanded the
Final Scope Ruling to the Department to reconsider whether SSPC with a
nominal thickness of 4.75 mm, but an actual thickness of less than 4.75
mm, is subject to the AD and CVD Orders.\7\ In remanding the case, the
Court directed the Department to apply 19 CFR 351.225, in conjunction
with the decisions of the CAFC in Duferco Inc. v. United States, 296
F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002), and Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States,
396 F. 3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. United States,
Court No. 08-00434 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 30, 2010) (remand order).
\8\ See id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On remand, the Department re-examined the language of the scope
and, based in part upon interpreting the language in the context of the
SSPC industry, determined it to be ambiguous as to whether it covers
SSPC with a nominal thickness of 4.75 mm, but an actual thickness of
less than 4.75 mm.\9\ Having found the scope language ambiguous, the
Department then analyzed the criteria specified by 19 CFR
351.225(k)(1), i.e., ``descriptions of the merchandise contained in the
petition, the initial investigation, and the determinations of the
Secretary (including prior scope determinations) and the {International
Trade
[[Page 30272]]
Commission{time} ,'' and found those to be non-dispositive as well.\10\
The Department thus reincorporated its earlier analysis under 19 CFR
351.225(k)(2) to conclude that SSPC with a nominal thickness greater
than or equal to 4.75 mm regardless of the actual thickness is included
within the scope of the AD and CVD Orders.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand,
dated July 29, 2010 (First Remand Redetermination), at 5-8, 16-17.
\10\ See id. at 8-12, 22-24.
\11\ See id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 12, 2011, the CIT sustained the Department's First Remand
Redetermination.\12\ AMS Belgium appealed the CIT's final judgment to
the CAFC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belg. N.V. v. United States,
Court No. 08-00434, Slip Op. 11-82 (Ct. Int'l Trade July 12, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 7, 2012, the CAFC reversed the CIT's judgment. The
CAFC concluded that substantial evidence did not support the
Department's determination that the language of the SSPC orders is
ambiguous and held that ``the plain meaning of the orders regarding the
4.75 mm thickness is a reference to actual thickness of products
subject to the orders.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See ArcelorMittal, 694 F.3d at 88-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 4, 2013, the CIT issued a remand order directing the
Department to take action in accordance with the CAFC's decision in
ArcelorMittal and to find that SSPC with an actual thickness of less
than 4.75 mm is outside the scope of the AD and CVD Orders.\14\
Pursuant to that order, the Department construed the scope of the AD
and CVD Orders so that SSPC from Belgium with an actual thickness of
less than 4.75 mm is not subject to the AD and CVD Orders on SSPC,
regardless of its nominal thickness.\15\ The CIT sustained the
Department's remand redetermination on March 26, 2013.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. United States,
Court No. 08-00434 (Ct. Int'l Trade Jan. 4, 2013) (remand order).
\15\ See Second Remand Determination at 6-7, 10.
\16\ See Final CIT Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades, the CAFC has 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 CAFC's September 7, 2012, judgment
in ArcelorMittal constitutes a final decision of that court that is not
in harmony with the Department's Final Scope Ruling. This notice is
published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Scope Ruling
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to SSPC
with an actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm, the Department amends
its Final Scope Ruling and now finds that the scope of the AD and CVD
Orders excludes SSPC with an actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm,
regardless of its nominal thickness. Accordingly, the Department will
issue revised instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(c)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 14, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-12223 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
