Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-2010, 72165-72166 [2014-28577]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Notices
Total Burden Hours: 7,925.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Charlene Parker,
Departmental Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[FR Doc. 2014–28552 Filed 12–4–14; 8:45 am]
Foreign-Trade Zone 221—Mesa,
Arizona; Authorization of Production
Activity; Apple Inc./GTAT Corp.
(Components for Consumer
Electronics); Mesa, Arizona
[B–55–2014]
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Sunshine Act Meeting
United States Commission on
Civil Rights.
AGENCY:
Notice of Commission Business
Meeting.
ACTION:
Date and Time: Friday,
December 12, 2014; 9:30 a.m. EST.
DATES:
Place: 1331 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public
Affairs Unit (202) 376–8591.
Hearing-impaired persons who will
attend the briefing and require the
services of a sign language interpreter
should contact Pamela Dunston at (202)
376–8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov
at least seven business days before the
scheduled date of the meeting.
On July 31, 2014, the City of Mesa,
grantee of FTZ 221, submitted a
notification of proposed production
activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones
(FTZ) Board on behalf of Apple Inc./
GTAT Corp., within Subzone 221A, in
Mesa, Arizona.
The notification was processed in
accordance with the regulations of the
FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including
notice in the Federal Register inviting
public comment (79 FR 47088–47089,
8–12–2014). The FTZ Board has
determined that no further review of the
activity is warranted at this time. The
production activity described in the
notification is authorized, subject to the
FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations,
including Section 400.14.
Dated: November 28, 2014.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–28582 Filed 12–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Meeting Agenda
International Trade Administration
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
This meeting is open to the public.
I. Approval of Agenda
II. Program Planning
• Review and Vote of the 2015
Statutory Enforcement Report
Discovery Plan
• Discussion and Vote on Updating
Select Commission Reports
III. Management and Operations
• Presentations from the Illinois and
Georgia SAC Chairs on their
Immigration Projects
• Staff Director’s Report
IV. State Advisory Committee (SAC)
Appointments
• Indiana
V. Adjourn Meeting
Dated: December 2, 2014.
Marlene Sallo,
Staff Director.
[FR Doc. 2014–28649 Filed 12–3–14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6335–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Dec 04, 2014
Jkt 235001
[A–570–904]
72165
weighted-average dumping margin for
Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.’s
(‘‘Calgon Tianjin’’) using revised
surrogate values for coal and fine byproducts.2 The Department also
recalculated in the Remand the
dumping margin for three respondents
not selected for individual examination
(i.e., the separate rate)—Ningxia
Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningxia Guanghua’’) and its
affiliate Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon
Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Beijing Pacific’’)
(together, ‘‘Cherishmet’’),3 as well as
Shanxi DMD Corporation (‘‘Shanxi
DMD’’).4
Consistent with the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) 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), the Department is notifying the
public that the final judgment in this
case is not in harmony with the
Department’s final results of the
antidumping duty administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
certain activated carbon from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
covering the period of review (‘‘POR’’)
April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010,
and is amending the final results with
respect to the weighted-average
dumping margins assigned to Ningxia
Guanghua, Beijing Pacific, and Shanxi
DMD.5
DATES:
Effective Date: December 4,
2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Certain Activated Carbon From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
Final Results of Administrative Review
and Notice of Amended Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2009–2010
Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–9068.
AGENCY:
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 24, 2014, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘the Court’’) issued final
judgment in Albemarle Corp. et al. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 11–
00451, sustaining the Department of
Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) final
results of redetermination pursuant to
remand (‘‘Remand’’).1 In the Remand,
the Department recalculated the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant
To Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 11–00451, Slip
Op. 13–106 (CIT August 15, 2013), dated January
9, 2014, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/
remands/13-106.pdf.
2 Id. at 8–10. As we explain below, the
Department’s recalculation of these surrogate values
continued to yield a de minimis weighted-average
dumping margin for Calgon Tianjin. Thus,
consistent with our practice, the Department has
not amended the final results with respect to Calgon
Tianjin.
3 The Department found Ningxia Guanghua and
Beijing Pacific to be affiliated and a single entity in
First Administrative Review of Certain Activated
Carbon From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 57995, 57998 (November 10, 2009).
4 See Remand at 10–13.
5 See Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142 (October 31,
2011) (‘‘AR3 Final Results’’) and the accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
72166
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 2014 / Notices
Background
On October 31, 2011, the Department
issued AR3 Final Results.6 Cherishmet
and Shanxi DMD, exporters of subject
merchandise, timely filed complaints
with the Court. Albemarle Corporation
(‘‘Albemarle’’), a U.S. importer of
subject merchandise, and Ningxia
Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Huahui’’), an exporter of subject
merchandise, also timely filed a
complaint with the Court. Together,
these parties challenged four aspects of
the Department’s final results: (1) The
surrogate value for Calgon Tianjin’s
carbonized material; (2) the surrogate
values for Calgon Tianjin’s coal and fine
by-products; (3) the dumping margins
assigned to Huahui, Shanxi DMD,
Ningxia Guanghua, and Beijing Pacific,
which were not selected for individual
examination in the review; and (4) the
use of a per-unit assessment rate for
Shanxi DMD’s entries. On August 15,
2013, the Court remanded the
Department’s AR3 Final Results and
instructed the Department to reconsider
each of these issues.7
On January 9, 2014, the Department
filed the Remand with the Court. First,
the Department continued to calculate
Calgon Tianjin’s surrogate value for
carbonized material with the same data
that it used in AR3 Final Results.8
Second, the Department recalculated
Calgon Tianjin’s surrogate values for
coal and fine by-products by capping
those values at the value assigned to
their main input, carbonized material.9
The Department’s recalculation of the
by-products surrogate values continued
to yield a de minimis weighted-average
dumping margin for Calgon Tianjin.10
Third, and under protest, the
Department averaged the zero and de
minimis rates calculated for the two
mandatory respondents in this
administrative review (i.e., Jacobi
Carbons AB and Calgon Tianjin) and
assigned the resulting zero dumping
margin to Ningxia Guanghua, Beijing
Pacific, and Shanxi DMD.11 Finally, the
Department determined that the issue
concerning the use of a per-unit
assessment rate for Shanxi DMD’s
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6 Id.
7 See Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 931 F.
Supp. 2d 1280 (CIT 2013). The Court reserved
judgment on the dumping margin assigned to
Huahui, which was different from the margin that
the Department assigned to Shanxi DMD, Ningxia
Guanghua, and Beijing Pacific. Id. It explained that
the Department could, but was not required to,
reconsider Huahui’s margin on remand. Id.
8 See Remand at 3–8.
9 Id. at 10.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 10–13. The Department did not change
the dumping margin assigned to Huahui. Id. at 22.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:38 Dec 04, 2014
Jkt 235001
entries was moot, given that the
Department assigned Shanxi DMD a
dumping margin of zero.12 On
November 24, 2014, the Court entered
judgment sustaining the Remand.13
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 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
Court’s November 24, 2014, judgment
sustaining the Remand constitutes a
final decision of the Court that is not in
harmony with the Department’s AR3
Final Results. This notice is published
in fulfillment of the publication
requirement of Timken.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The cash deposit rate for Cherishmet
will remain the respondent-specific rate
established for the subsequent and
most-recent period during which the
respondent was reviewed, which is
$0.04 per kilogram.15 The cash deposit
rate for the PRC-wide rate, which now
includes Shanxi DMD, will remain the
PRC-wide entity rate established for the
subsequent and most-recent period
during which the PRC-wide entity was
reviewed, which is 2.42 U.S. dollars per
kilogram.16
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 1, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014–28577 Filed 12–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision, the Department amends AR3
Final Results with respect to Cherishmet
and Shanxi DMD. The revised weightedaverage dumping margins for these
exporters during the period April 1,
2009, through March 31, 2010, follow:
Exporter name
Weighted average
dumping margin
(dollars per
kilogram)
Ningxia Guanghua
Cherishmet Activated
Carbon Co., Ltd 14 .....
Shanxi DMD Corporation ............................
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–924]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Preliminary Determination of
No Shipments and Partial Rescission
of Review; 2012–2013
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
0.00 Department of Commerce.
0.00 SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
Accordingly, the Department will
antidumping duty order on
continue the suspension of liquidation
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,
of the subject merchandise pending the
and strip (‘‘PET film’’) from the People’s
expiration of the period of appeal or, if
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period
appealed, pending a final and
of review (‘‘POR’’) is November 1, 2012,
conclusive court decision. In the event
through October 31, 2013. The
the Court’s ruling is not appealed or, if
Department initiated the review with
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the
respect to five companies. We
Department will instruct U.S. Customs
preliminarily find that two of the
and Border Protection to assess
mandatory respondents, Shaoxing
antidumping duties on unliquidated
Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd. and
entries of subject merchandise exported Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. made sales of
by Cherishmet and Shanxi DMD using
subject merchandise at less than normal
the assessment rate calculated by the
value (‘‘NV’’). We are rescinding the
Department in the Remand and listed
review with respect to Huangshi
above.
Yucheng Trade Co. Ltd. (‘‘Yucheng’’).
Further, we preliminarily find that
AGENCY:
12 Id.
at 13–15.
Albemarle Corp. et al. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 11–00451 (CIT November 24,
2014).
14 This dumping margin also applies to Beijing
Pacific. See supra note 3.
13 See
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15 See Certain Activated Carbon From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012–
2013, 79 FR 70163, 70165 (November 25, 2014).
16 Id.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72165-72166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28577]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-904]
Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-2010
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 24, 2014, the United States Court of International
Trade (``the Court'') issued final judgment in Albemarle Corp. et al.
v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11-00451, sustaining the Department
of Commerce's (``the Department'') final results of redetermination
pursuant to remand (``Remand'').\1\ In the Remand, the Department
recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin for Calgon Carbon
(Tianjin) Co., Ltd.'s (``Calgon Tianjin'') using revised surrogate
values for coal and fine by-products.\2\ The Department also
recalculated in the Remand the dumping margin for three respondents not
selected for individual examination (i.e., the separate rate)--Ningxia
Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Ningxia Guanghua'')
and its affiliate Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd.
(``Beijing Pacific'') (together, ``Cherishmet''),\3\ as well as Shanxi
DMD Corporation (``Shanxi DMD'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court
Remand, Consol. Court No. 11-00451, Slip Op. 13-106 (CIT August 15,
2013), dated January 9, 2014, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/13-106.pdf.
\2\ Id. at 8-10. As we explain below, the Department's
recalculation of these surrogate values continued to yield a de
minimis weighted-average dumping margin for Calgon Tianjin. Thus,
consistent with our practice, the Department has not amended the
final results with respect to Calgon Tianjin.
\3\ The Department found Ningxia Guanghua and Beijing Pacific to
be affiliated and a single entity in First Administrative Review of
Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 57995,
57998 (November 10, 2009).
\4\ See Remand at 10-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') 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), the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment
in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final results of
the antidumping duty administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on certain activated carbon from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') covering the period of review (``POR'') April 1, 2009,
through March 31, 2010, and is amending the final results with respect
to the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Ningxia Guanghua,
Beijing Pacific, and Shanxi DMD.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Third Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67142 (October 31, 2011) (``AR3
Final Results'') and the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 4, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations
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-
9068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 72166]]
Background
On October 31, 2011, the Department issued AR3 Final Results.\6\
Cherishmet and Shanxi DMD, exporters of subject merchandise, timely
filed complaints with the Court. Albemarle Corporation (``Albemarle''),
a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, and Ningxia Huahui Activated
Carbon Co., Ltd. (``Huahui''), an exporter of subject merchandise, also
timely filed a complaint with the Court. Together, these parties
challenged four aspects of the Department's final results: (1) The
surrogate value for Calgon Tianjin's carbonized material; (2) the
surrogate values for Calgon Tianjin's coal and fine by-products; (3)
the dumping margins assigned to Huahui, Shanxi DMD, Ningxia Guanghua,
and Beijing Pacific, which were not selected for individual examination
in the review; and (4) the use of a per-unit assessment rate for Shanxi
DMD's entries. On August 15, 2013, the Court remanded the Department's
AR3 Final Results and instructed the Department to reconsider each of
these issues.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ See Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 931 F. Supp. 2d 1280
(CIT 2013). The Court reserved judgment on the dumping margin
assigned to Huahui, which was different from the margin that the
Department assigned to Shanxi DMD, Ningxia Guanghua, and Beijing
Pacific. Id. It explained that the Department could, but was not
required to, reconsider Huahui's margin on remand. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 9, 2014, the Department filed the Remand with the Court.
First, the Department continued to calculate Calgon Tianjin's surrogate
value for carbonized material with the same data that it used in AR3
Final Results.\8\ Second, the Department recalculated Calgon Tianjin's
surrogate values for coal and fine by-products by capping those values
at the value assigned to their main input, carbonized material.\9\ The
Department's recalculation of the by-products surrogate values
continued to yield a de minimis weighted-average dumping margin for
Calgon Tianjin.\10\ Third, and under protest, the Department averaged
the zero and de minimis rates calculated for the two mandatory
respondents in this administrative review (i.e., Jacobi Carbons AB and
Calgon Tianjin) and assigned the resulting zero dumping margin to
Ningxia Guanghua, Beijing Pacific, and Shanxi DMD.\11\ Finally, the
Department determined that the issue concerning the use of a per-unit
assessment rate for Shanxi DMD's entries was moot, given that the
Department assigned Shanxi DMD a dumping margin of zero.\12\ On
November 24, 2014, the Court entered judgment sustaining the
Remand.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Remand at 3-8.
\9\ Id. at 10.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id. at 10-13. The Department did not change the dumping
margin assigned to Huahui. Id. at 22.
\12\ Id. at 13-15.
\13\ See Albemarle Corp. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court
No. 11-00451 (CIT November 24, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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 Court's November 24, 2014,
judgment sustaining the Remand constitutes a final decision of the
Court that is not in harmony with the Department's AR3 Final Results.
This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement
of Timken.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department amends
AR3 Final Results with respect to Cherishmet and Shanxi DMD. The
revised weighted-average dumping margins for these exporters during the
period April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010, follow:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average
dumping margin
Exporter name (dollars per
kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., 0.00
Ltd \14\...........................................
Shanxi DMD Corporation.............................. 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of
liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the
period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court
decision. In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated
entries of subject merchandise exported by Cherishmet and Shanxi DMD
using the assessment rate calculated by the Department in the Remand
and listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ This dumping margin also applies to Beijing Pacific. See
supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The cash deposit rate for Cherishmet will remain the respondent-
specific rate established for the subsequent and most-recent period
during which the respondent was reviewed, which is $0.04 per
kilogram.\15\ The cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide rate, which now
includes Shanxi DMD, will remain the PRC-wide entity rate established
for the subsequent and most-recent period during which the PRC-wide
entity was reviewed, which is 2.42 U.S. dollars per kilogram.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2012-2013, 79 FR 70163, 70165 (November 25, 2014).
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 1, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-28577 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
