Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 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 Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision, 13826-13827 [2015-06127]

Download as PDF 13826 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including Henan Sanli, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 sanctionable violation. These final results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 10, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015–06105 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–924] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 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 Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 27, 2015 the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) sustained the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) final results of remand redetermination, pursuant to the CIT’s remand order, in DuPont Teijin Films China Limited, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 15–19 (CIT February 27, 2015).1 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) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department’s PET Film Final Results 2 and is amending the final results with respect to DuPont Teijin Film China Limited Co., Ltd. (‘‘DuPont’’) and Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wanhua’’) for the period of review from November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011. DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3936. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On June 12, 2013, the Department published the PET Film Final Results. 1 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Court No. 13–00229, dated January 9, 2015, available at: http://enforcement. trade.gov/remands/index.html (‘‘PET Film Final Remand’’); see also DuPont Teijin Films China Limited, et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 13–00229, Slip Op. 15–19 (CIT 2015) (‘‘Remand Opinion and Order’’). 2 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010–2011, 78 FR 35245 (June 12, 2013) (‘‘PET Film Final Results’’). PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Interested parties DuPont, DuPont Hongji Films Foshan Co., Ltd., DuPont Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd., DuPont Teijin Films U.S. Limited Partnership, and Wanhua, appealed the PET Film Final Results to the CIT. On September 11, 2014, the CIT remanded several issues with respect to the PET Film Final Results.3 Specifically, the CIT held that: (1) The Department’s approach of valuing DuPont’s recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate (‘‘PET’’) chips factor of production, while denying its by-product offset for recyclable PET waste, was unreasonable because it resulted in double-counting, and the Department must ‘‘reconsider its approach, and adopt a methodology that does not result in double-counting costs, insofar as reasonably avoidable;’’ and (2) the Department’s brokerage and handling calculation for DuPont ‘‘incorrectly assumes that a shipment weighing less will incur lower document preparation and customs clearance costs, while a shipment weighing more will incur higher preparation costs,’’ and that the brokerage and handling figure therefore required ‘‘recalculation.’’ 4 The CIT also held that because Wanhua’s separate rate was based on DuPont’s rate, ‘‘any change to DuPont’s margin following remand shall be applied to Wanhua’s rate as well.’’ 5 Pursuant to the CIT’s remand instructions, the Department reexamined record evidence and made the following changes. The Department revised its calculation of DuPont’s margin in two ways. First, the Department reopened the record to allow DuPont an opportunity to substantiate its by-product offset, and granted that offset. Second, the Department adjusted DuPont’s brokerage and handling surrogate value calculation by dividing the surrogate value for document preparation and customs clearance costs by the weight of DuPont’s shipments. In addition, the Department revised its calculation of Wanhua’s separate rate by adjusting it for any changes to DuPont’s margin, given that its margin was solely based on DuPont’s margin. 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 (‘‘Act’’), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that 3 See DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (CIT 2014). 4 Id. at 1347–51. 5 Id. at 1359. E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s February 27, 2015, judgment sustaining the PET Film Final Remand constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the PET Film Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. Since the PET Film Final Results, the Department established a new cash deposit rate for DuPont and Wanhua.6 Therefore, DuPont’s and Wanhua’s cash deposit rates do not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results. The cash deposit rates for DuPont and Wanhua will remain the rates established for the subsequent and most recent period during which each respondent was reviewed. Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the PET Film Final Results, the revised weightedaverage dumping margins are as follows: Exporter Weightedaverage margin (percent) The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section International Trade Administration 771(9)(C), of the Act. The Department received complete [A–351–837, A–533–828, A–588–068, A–580– substantive responses to the Initiation 852, A–201–831, A–549–820] Notice from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day period Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). Strand From Brazil, India, Japan, the The Department received no substantive Republic of Korea, Mexico, and responses from any respondent Thailand: Final Results of the interested parties. In accordance with Expedited Sunset Reviews of the section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 Antidumping Duty Finding/Orders CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Department conducted expedited (120International Trade Administration, day) sunset reviews of the antidumping Department of Commerce. duty finding/orders on PC strand from SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and (the Department) finds that revocation Thailand. of the antidumping duty finding/orders on prestressed concrete steel wire strand Scope of the Finding/Orders (PC strand) from Brazil, India, Japan, the The product covered in the sunset Republic of Korea, Mexico, and reviews of the antidumping duty orders Thailand would be likely to lead to on PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, continuation or recurrence of dumping Mexico, and Thailand is steel strand as indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of produced from wire of non-stainless, Sunset Review’’ section of this notice. non-galvanized steel, which is suitable for use in prestressed concrete (both DATES: Effective Date: March 17, 2015. pre-tensioned and post-tensioned) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: applications. The product definition Michael Romani or Minoo Hatten, AD/ encompasses covered and uncovered CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement strand and all types, grades, and and Compliance, International Trade diameters of PC strand. Administration, U.S. Department of The product covered in the sunset Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution review of the antidumping duty finding Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0198 or (202) 482– on PC strand from Japan is steel wire strand, other than alloy steel, not 1690, respectively. galvanized, which is stress-relieved and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: suitable for use in prestressed concrete. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Background mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES On November 3, 2014, the Department published the notice of initiation of the DuPont Teijin Films China Limited ........................................ 4.42 sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 1 Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd ........... 4.42 finding orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Thailand This notice is issued and published in pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i), the Department Dated: March 11, 2015. received notices of intent to participate Paul Piquado, in these sunset reviews from Insteel Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Wire Products Company and Sumiden Compliance. Wire Products Corp. (collectively, the [FR Doc. 2015–06127 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] domestic interested parties) within 15 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P days after the date of publication of the Initiation Notice and the effective date of the initiation of this sunset review.3 6 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–2012, 79 FR 37715 (July 2, 2014). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 13827 1 On December 8, 1978, the Department of the Treasury published the antidumping duty finding, which is equivalent to an antidumping duty order published after 1980, on PC strand from Japan. See Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan: Finding of Dumping, 43 FR 57599 (December 8, 1978). 2 See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 79 FR 65186 (November 3, 2014) (Initiation Notice). 3 See Notices of Intent to Participate in Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand Sunset Reviews (November 17, 2014). PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The merchandise subject to the finding/orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the finding/orders is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 Analysis of Comments Received A complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of dumping margins likely to prevail if the finding/orders 4 See memorandum to Paul Piquado entitled ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Finding/Orders on Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Thailand,’’ dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13826-13827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-924]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 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 Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 27, 2015 the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'') sustained the Department of Commerce's (``the 
Department'') final results of remand redetermination, pursuant to the 
CIT's remand order, in DuPont Teijin Films China Limited, et al. v. 
United States, Slip Op. 15-19 (CIT February 27, 2015).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Court No. 13-00229, dated January 9, 2015, available at: 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.html (``PET Film Final 
Remand''); see also DuPont Teijin Films China Limited, et al. v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 13-00229, Slip Op. 15-19 (CIT 2015) 
(``Remand Opinion and Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) (``Diamond Sawblades''), the Department is notifying the public 
that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the 
Department's PET Film Final Results \2\ and is amending the final 
results with respect to DuPont Teijin Film China Limited Co., Ltd. 
(``DuPont'') and Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. (``Wanhua'') for the period 
of review from November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2010-2011, 78 FR 35245 (June 12, 2013) (``PET 
Film Final Results'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin, Office IV, Enforcement 
& Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 12, 2013, the Department published the PET Film Final 
Results. Interested parties DuPont, DuPont Hongji Films Foshan Co., 
Ltd., DuPont Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd., DuPont Teijin Films 
U.S. Limited Partnership, and Wanhua, appealed the PET Film Final 
Results to the CIT. On September 11, 2014, the CIT remanded several 
issues with respect to the PET Film Final Results.\3\ Specifically, the 
CIT held that: (1) The Department's approach of valuing DuPont's 
recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate (``PET'') chips factor of 
production, while denying its by-product offset for recyclable PET 
waste, was unreasonable because it resulted in double-counting, and the 
Department must ``reconsider its approach, and adopt a methodology that 
does not result in double-counting costs, insofar as reasonably 
avoidable;'' and (2) the Department's brokerage and handling 
calculation for DuPont ``incorrectly assumes that a shipment weighing 
less will incur lower document preparation and customs clearance costs, 
while a shipment weighing more will incur higher preparation costs,'' 
and that the brokerage and handling figure therefore required 
``recalculation.'' \4\ The CIT also held that because Wanhua's separate 
rate was based on DuPont's rate, ``any change to DuPont's margin 
following remand shall be applied to Wanhua's rate as well.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. v. United States, 7 F. 
Supp. 3d 1338 (CIT 2014).
    \4\ Id. at 1347-51.
    \5\ Id. at 1359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the CIT's remand instructions, the Department re-
examined record evidence and made the following changes. The Department 
revised its calculation of DuPont's margin in two ways. First, the 
Department reopened the record to allow DuPont an opportunity to 
substantiate its by-product offset, and granted that offset. Second, 
the Department adjusted DuPont's brokerage and handling surrogate value 
calculation by dividing the surrogate value for document preparation 
and customs clearance costs by the weight of DuPont's shipments. In 
addition, the Department revised its calculation of Wanhua's separate 
rate by adjusting it for any changes to DuPont's margin, given that its 
margin was solely based on DuPont's margin.

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 (``Act''), the Department must publish a 
notice of a court decision that

[[Page 13827]]

is not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination and must suspend 
liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The 
CIT's February 27, 2015, judgment sustaining the PET Film Final Remand 
constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with 
the PET Film Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of 
the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department 
will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise 
pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending 
a final and conclusive court decision. Since the PET Film Final 
Results, the Department established a new cash deposit rate for DuPont 
and Wanhua.\6\ Therefore, DuPont's and Wanhua's cash deposit rates do 
not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results. The 
cash deposit rates for DuPont and Wanhua will remain the rates 
established for the subsequent and most recent period during which each 
respondent was reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 37715 (July 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the PET 
Film Final Results, the revised weighted-average dumping margins are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                          Exporter                              margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DuPont Teijin Films China Limited..........................         4.42
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd....................................         4.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: March 11, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-06127 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P