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
<![CDATA[
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
