Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-2010, 28891-28893 [2014-11693]

Download as PDF emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 97 / Tuesday, May 20, 2014 / Notices U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).’’ 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction. I have received notice of Gimenez’s conviction for violating the AECA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Gimenez to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. I have received a submission from Gimenez. Based upon my review and consultations with BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Gimenez’s export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Gimenez’s conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Gimenez had an interest at the time of his conviction. Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered I. Until March 21, 2022, Juan Victorian Gimenez, with a last known address at: Inmate #—95463–004, FPC Duluth, Federal Prison Camp, P.O. Box 1000, Duluth, MN 55814, and when acting for or on behalf of Gimenez, his representatives, assigns, agents or employees (the ‘‘Denied Person’’), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to: A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document; B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:09 May 19, 2014 Jkt 232001 C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations. II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following: A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations; B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control; C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States; D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing. III. After notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Gimenez by affiliation, ownership, control or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be subject to the provisions of this Order if necessary to prevent evasion of the Order. IV. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until March 21, 2022. V. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Gimenez may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 28891 Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations. VI. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Gimenez. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register. Issued this 9th day of May, 2014. Eileen M. Albanese, Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services. [FR Doc. 2014–11672 Filed 5–19–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–916] Laminated Woven Sacks From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009–2010 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 13, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit (CAFC), issued its decision in AMS Associates, Inc. v. United States, 737 F.3d 1338 (CAFC 2013) (AMS II), affirming the Court of International Trade’s (CIT) decision in AMS Associates, Inc. v. United States, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (CIT 2012) (AMS I). In AMS I, the CIT held that the Department of Commerce (the Department) exceeded its authority under 19 CFR 351.225(l) by retroactively suspending liquidation of entries of laminated woven sacks (LWS) produced in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) using fabric imported from thirdcountries. Accordingly, the CIT remanded the case and ordered the Department to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to lift the suspension of liquidation and liquidate the affected entries without regard to duties. Consistent with the decision of the CAFC in Timken,1 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,2 the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department’s AR2 Final Results,3 that it will liquidate the AGENCY: 1 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’). 2 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’). 3 See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 21333 (April 15, 2011) (‘‘AR2 Final Results’’). E:\FR\FM\20MYN1.SGM 20MYN1 28892 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 97 / Tuesday, May 20, 2014 / Notices entries at issue in AMS I and AMS II without regard to duties, and that it is amending the effective date of its country of origin determination regarding LWS produced in the PRC from imported fabric. DATES: Effective Date: March 24, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6905. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 7, 2008, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on LWS from the PRC.4 The scope of the Order stated that: The merchandise covered by this investigation is laminated woven sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/ or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxiallyoriented polypropylene (‘‘BOPP’’) or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high quality print graphics; printed with three colors or more in register; with or without lining; whether or not closed on one end; whether or not in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves); with or without handles; with or without special closing features; not exceeding one kilogram in weight. Laminated woven sacks are typically used for retail packaging of consumer goods such as pet foods and bird seed. First Administrative Review emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES In the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on LWS from the PRC, the Department preliminarily determined that the country of origin of LWS produced in the PRC from imported woven fabric is the PRC.5 As a result, the Department issued instructions notifying CBP to continue suspending liquidation of all LWS from the PRC, regardless of the country of origin of the woven fabric, consistent with the suspension of liquidation instructions issued following the Order.6 4 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Laminated Woven Sacks from the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 45941 (August 7, 2008) (‘‘Order’’). 5 See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55568, 55569 (September 13, 2010). 6 See CBP Message No. 020431 (July 23, 2010); see also CBP Message No. 8234202 (August 21, 2008) (ordering CBP to suspend imports of LWS from the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:09 May 19, 2014 Jkt 232001 Following the preliminary results, the Department issued additional instructions to CBP to mitigate inaccurate reporting of entries arising from the technical restrictions of CBP’s electronic filing system. These instructions created a series of 10-digit case numbers to allow LWS produced in the PRC from fabric originating in a third country to be properly claimed as LWS subject to the Order upon entry into the United States.7 In its March 18, 2011 final results, the Department finalized its country of origin determination and continued to find that the LWS finishing process, which includes lamination and printing processes, substantially transforms the inherent nature of the woven fabric input. The Department also continued to find that, when such substantial transformation takes place in the PRC, the country of origin for the produced LWS is the PRC.8 Second Administrative Review On September 29, 2010, the Department initiated the second administrative review of LWS from the PRC.9 Because parties only requested a review of Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co. Ltd. (Zibo Aifudi), we initiated the review with Zibo Aifudi as the sole mandatory respondent. Thereafter, Zibo Aifudi notified the Department of its intent to withdraw from the review and refused to participate in the review. Thus, in the preliminary results, we determined that, because Zibo Aifudi failed to respond to the Department’s antidumping duty questionnaires and withdrew its participation from the review, it was not eligible for a separate rate and should treated as part of the PRC-wide entity, to which we subsequently assigned an adverse facts available rate.10 AMS Associates, Inc., (d/b/a Shapiro Packaging) (AMS), the U.S. importer of LWS exported by Zibo Aifudi, entered an appearance in the second PRC that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after January 31, 2008). 7 See CBP Message No. 0327303 (November 23, 2010); see also CBP Message No. 0327306 (November 23, 2010). 8 See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of First Antidumping Order Administrative Review, 76 FR 14906, 14906–07 (March 18, 2011) (‘‘AR1 Final Results’’) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1b and 1d. 9 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 60076 (September 29, 2010). 10 See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Second Administrative Review, 75 FR 81218 (December 27, 2010). PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 administrative review and filed its case brief, contending that the Department’s country of origin determination in the first administrative review was procedurally erroneous and that the Department had no statutory or regulatory basis to issue suspension instructions to CBP in the context of an annual administrative review. However, AMS did not challenge the Department’s (1) country of origin determination on LWS produced in the PRC from imported fabric, (2) preliminary determination of Zibo Aifudi’s ineligibility for a separate rate, (3) application of adverse facts available to the PRC-wide entity, or (4) the adverse facts available rate applied to the PRC-wide entity. In the AR2 Final Results, the Department continued to find that the application of adverse facts available was warranted for the PRCwide entity and that it followed the correct procedures in making the country of origin determination in the prior review.11 Court Rulings Subsequently, AMS challenged the Department’s AR2 Final Results, arguing that the Department did not act in accordance with its own regulations by conducting a scope analysis during the course of the first administrative review and exceeded its authority by issuing instructions to CBP to suspend LWS produced in the PRC from imported fabric.12 On December 18, 2012, the CIT held that the Department exceeded its authority by suspending liquidation of all entries of LWS produced in the PRC from imported fabric, which AMS reported as non-subject merchandise based solely on the country of origin of the fabric input.13 The CIT remanded the case and ordered the Department to issue instructions to CBP to lift the suspension and liquidate the affected entries (LWS produced in the PRC from imported fabric) without regard to duties.14 On December 21, 2012, the United States moved to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal. On January 11, 2013, the CIT granted the United States’ motion and ordered that execution of the judgment, including liquidation of the entries at issue, be stayed through the conclusion of any appeal. On appeal, the CAFC affirmed the CIT’s judgment, holding that the Department (1) erred in failing to 11 See AR2 Final Results, 76 FR at 21334, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 12 See AMS I, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1378–79. 13 See id., at 1382–83. 14 See id., at 1383. E:\FR\FM\20MYN1.SGM 20MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 97 / Tuesday, May 20, 2014 / Notices conduct a formal scope inquiry in this case because the scope of the original antidumping order was unclear, and (2) exceeded its authority under 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2) by ordering the suspension of liquidation retroactive to the beginning of the period of review when the order did not clearly cover LWS manufactured in the PRC from imported fabrics.15 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 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 December 13, 2013, judgment in AMS II constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the AR2 Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, as instructed, the Department will lift the suspension of liquidation of the entries at issue. Amended Final Results emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES Dated: May 14, 2014. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2014–11693 Filed 5–19–14; 8:45 am] Assessment Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012–2013 The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issues appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice. Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from Brazil for the period November 1, 2012 through October 31, 2013. DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1121 or (202) 482–0649, respectively. AGENCY: On December 30, 2013, based on a timely request by DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. and SKC, Inc. (collectively, petitioners), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from Brazil covering the period November 1, 2012 through October 31, 2013.1 The review covers one firm, Terphane, Ltda. (Terphane). On March 31, 2014, petitioners withdrew their request for review of Terphane. Rescission of Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Petitioners withdrew their request within the 90day deadline.2 No other party requested an administrative review of this antidumping duty order. As a result, we are rescinding the administrative review 1 See 15 See AMS II, 737 F.3d at 1344. 16 See AR1 Final Results, 76 FR at 14906. 17 See AMS II, 737 F.3d at 1344 (affirming a remand to lift the liquidation suspension for the entries which were the subject of the AMS litigation). 17:09 May 19, 2014 [A–351–841] Notifications This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: May 13, 2014. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2014–11673 Filed 5–19–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 International Trade Administration of PET film from Brazil for the period November 1, 2012 through October 31, 2013. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the AR2 Final Results to reflect the results of the litigation. The revised effective date of the Department’s country of origin determination is now the publication date of the final results of the first administrative review, March 18, 2011.16 Accordingly, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of LWS produced in the PRC from imported fabric that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, before March 18, 2011 without regard to duties.17 The Department will release the draft instructions to interested parties prior to transmission of these instructions to CBP. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 28893 Jkt 232001 Initiation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, and Request for Revocation, in Part, 78 FR 79392 (December 30, 2013). 2 The 90-day deadline fell on Sunday, March 30, 2014; therefore, petitioners had until the next business day, or Monday, March 31, 2014, to withdraw their request for review. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P E:\FR\FM\20MYN1.SGM 20MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28891-28893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11693]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-916]


Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Amended Final 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-2010

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 13, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for 
Federal Circuit (CAFC), issued its decision in AMS Associates, Inc. v. 
United States, 737 F.3d 1338 (CAFC 2013) (AMS II), affirming the Court 
of International Trade's (CIT) decision in AMS Associates, Inc. v. 
United States, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (CIT 2012) (AMS I). In AMS I, the 
CIT held that the Department of Commerce (the Department) exceeded its 
authority under 19 CFR 351.225(l) by retroactively suspending 
liquidation of entries of laminated woven sacks (LWS) produced in the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) using fabric imported from third-
countries. Accordingly, the CIT remanded the case and ordered the 
Department to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to lift the suspension of liquidation and liquidate the affected 
entries without regard to duties. Consistent with the decision of the 
CAFC in Timken,\1\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\2\ the Department 
is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in 
harmony with the Department's AR2 Final Results,\3\ that it will 
liquidate the

[[Page 28892]]

entries at issue in AMS I and AMS II without regard to duties, and that 
it is amending the effective date of its country of origin 
determination regarding LWS produced in the PRC from imported fabric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (``Timken'').
    \2\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Diamond Sawblades'').
    \3\ See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 21333 (April 15, 2011) (``AR2 Final Results'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: March 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, Office V, Enforcement 
and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 7, 2008, the Department issued an antidumping duty order 
on LWS from the PRC.\4\ The scope of the Order stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Laminated Woven Sacks 
from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 45941 (August 7, 2008) 
(``Order'').

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is laminated woven 
sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or 
more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or 
woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with 
or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene 
on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either 
to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented 
polypropylene (``BOPP'') or to an exterior ply of paper that is 
suitable for high quality print graphics; printed with three colors 
or more in register; with or without lining; whether or not closed 
on one end; whether or not in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat 
tubing, and sleeves); with or without handles; with or without 
special closing features; not exceeding one kilogram in weight. 
Laminated woven sacks are typically used for retail packaging of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consumer goods such as pet foods and bird seed.

First Administrative Review

    In the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
LWS from the PRC, the Department preliminarily determined that the 
country of origin of LWS produced in the PRC from imported woven fabric 
is the PRC.\5\ As a result, the Department issued instructions 
notifying CBP to continue suspending liquidation of all LWS from the 
PRC, regardless of the country of origin of the woven fabric, 
consistent with the suspension of liquidation instructions issued 
following the Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 55568, 55569 (September 13, 2010).
    \6\ See CBP Message No. 020431 (July 23, 2010); see also CBP 
Message No. 8234202 (August 21, 2008) (ordering CBP to suspend 
imports of LWS from the PRC that were entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption on or after January 31, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the preliminary results, the Department issued additional 
instructions to CBP to mitigate inaccurate reporting of entries arising 
from the technical restrictions of CBP's electronic filing system. 
These instructions created a series of 10-digit case numbers to allow 
LWS produced in the PRC from fabric originating in a third country to 
be properly claimed as LWS subject to the Order upon entry into the 
United States.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CBP Message No. 0327303 (November 23, 2010); see also 
CBP Message No. 0327306 (November 23, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its March 18, 2011 final results, the Department finalized its 
country of origin determination and continued to find that the LWS 
finishing process, which includes lamination and printing processes, 
substantially transforms the inherent nature of the woven fabric input. 
The Department also continued to find that, when such substantial 
transformation takes place in the PRC, the country of origin for the 
produced LWS is the PRC.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of First Antidumping Order Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 14906, 14906-07 (March 18, 2011) (``AR1 Final 
Results'') and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comments 1b and 1d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Administrative Review

    On September 29, 2010, the Department initiated the second 
administrative review of LWS from the PRC.\9\ Because parties only 
requested a review of Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co. Ltd. (Zibo 
Aifudi), we initiated the review with Zibo Aifudi as the sole mandatory 
respondent. Thereafter, Zibo Aifudi notified the Department of its 
intent to withdraw from the review and refused to participate in the 
review. Thus, in the preliminary results, we determined that, because 
Zibo Aifudi failed to respond to the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaires and withdrew its participation from the review, it was 
not eligible for a separate rate and should treated as part of the PRC-
wide entity, to which we subsequently assigned an adverse facts 
available rate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 
60076 (September 29, 2010).
    \10\ See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of the Second Administrative Review, 75 
FR 81218 (December 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMS Associates, Inc., (d/b/a Shapiro Packaging) (AMS), the U.S. 
importer of LWS exported by Zibo Aifudi, entered an appearance in the 
second administrative review and filed its case brief, contending that 
the Department's country of origin determination in the first 
administrative review was procedurally erroneous and that the 
Department had no statutory or regulatory basis to issue suspension 
instructions to CBP in the context of an annual administrative review. 
However, AMS did not challenge the Department's (1) country of origin 
determination on LWS produced in the PRC from imported fabric, (2) 
preliminary determination of Zibo Aifudi's ineligibility for a separate 
rate, (3) application of adverse facts available to the PRC-wide 
entity, or (4) the adverse facts available rate applied to the PRC-wide 
entity. In the AR2 Final Results, the Department continued to find that 
the application of adverse facts available was warranted for the PRC-
wide entity and that it followed the correct procedures in making the 
country of origin determination in the prior review.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See AR2 Final Results, 76 FR at 21334, and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court Rulings

    Subsequently, AMS challenged the Department's AR2 Final Results, 
arguing that the Department did not act in accordance with its own 
regulations by conducting a scope analysis during the course of the 
first administrative review and exceeded its authority by issuing 
instructions to CBP to suspend LWS produced in the PRC from imported 
fabric.\12\ On December 18, 2012, the CIT held that the Department 
exceeded its authority by suspending liquidation of all entries of LWS 
produced in the PRC from imported fabric, which AMS reported as non-
subject merchandise based solely on the country of origin of the fabric 
input.\13\ The CIT remanded the case and ordered the Department to 
issue instructions to CBP to lift the suspension and liquidate the 
affected entries (LWS produced in the PRC from imported fabric) without 
regard to duties.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See AMS I, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1378-79.
    \13\ See id., at 1382-83.
    \14\ See id., at 1383.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 21, 2012, the United States moved to stay execution of 
the judgment pending appeal. On January 11, 2013, the CIT granted the 
United States' motion and ordered that execution of the judgment, 
including liquidation of the entries at issue, be stayed through the 
conclusion of any appeal.
    On appeal, the CAFC affirmed the CIT's judgment, holding that the 
Department (1) erred in failing to

[[Page 28893]]

conduct a formal scope inquiry in this case because the scope of the 
original antidumping order was unclear, and (2) exceeded its authority 
under 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2) by ordering the suspension of liquidation 
retroactive to the beginning of the period of review when the order did 
not clearly cover LWS manufactured in the PRC from imported 
fabrics.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See AMS II, 737 F.3d at 1344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 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 December 13, 2013, judgment in AMS II constitutes a final 
decision of that court that is not in harmony with the AR2 Final 
Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication 
requirements of Timken. Accordingly, as instructed, the Department will 
lift the suspension of liquidation of the entries at issue.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the 
AR2 Final Results to reflect the results of the litigation. The revised 
effective date of the Department's country of origin determination is 
now the publication date of the final results of the first 
administrative review, March 18, 2011.\16\ Accordingly, the Department 
will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of LWS produced in the PRC from 
imported fabric that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption, before March 18, 2011 without regard to duties.\17\ The 
Department will release the draft instructions to interested parties 
prior to transmission of these instructions to CBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See AR1 Final Results, 76 FR at 14906.
    \17\ See AMS II, 737 F.3d at 1344 (affirming a remand to lift 
the liquidation suspension for the entries which were the subject of 
the AMS litigation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 14, 2014.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-11693 Filed 5-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P