Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2004-2005, 13828-13829 [2015-06137]

Download as PDF 13828 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).5 ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit in Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. Final Results of Reviews mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (2) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty finding/orders on PC strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Mexico, Korea, and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping up to the following weightedaverage margin percentages: Dated: March 3, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015–05815 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–588–804] Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2004–2005 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 25, 2015, the United States Court of International WeightedTrade (CIT or Court) issued final average Country judgment in JTEKT Corp. v. United margin States, Consol. Court No. 06–00250 (percent) (JTEKT Corp.), affirming the Department Brazil ..................................... 118.75 of Commerce’s (the Department) final India ...................................... 102.07 results of redetermination pursuant to Japan .................................... 13.30 remand.1 Korea .................................... 54.19 Consistent with the decision of the Mexico .................................. 77.20 United States Court of Appeals for the Thailand ................................ 12.91 Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. Notification to Interested Parties 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United This notice serves as the only States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) reminder to parties subject to (Diamond Sawblades), the Department administrative protective orders (APO) is notifying the public that the final of their responsibility concerning the judgment in this case is not in harmony disposition of proprietary information with the Department’s final results of disclosed under APO in accordance the administrative review of the with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written antidumping duty order on ball bearings notification of the destruction of APO and parts thereof from Japan, covering materials or conversion to judicial the period May 1, 2004 through April protective order is hereby requested. 30, 2005, and is amending the final Failure to comply with the regulations results with respect to Nachi-Fujikoshi and terms of an APO is a violation Corporation and NTN Corporation. which is subject to sanction. DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2015. The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in accordance with sections 751(c), Thomas Schauer, Office I, Enforcement 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 and Compliance, International Trade CFR 351.218. Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 5 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and telephone: (202) 482–0410. Compliance’s AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’). The Web site location was changed from https:// iaaccess.trade.gov to https://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 AGENCY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1 See Final Second Remand Redetermination, Consol. Court No. 06–250, available at: https:// enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-13.pdf (Final Second Remand). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Background On July 14, 2006, the Department published AFBs 16.2 Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi), NTN Corporation (NTN), and other parties appealed AFBs 16 to the CIT. On December 18, 2009, the CIT remanded AFBs 16 for the Department to, inter alia, (1) redetermine NTN’s freight expenses using a method that is consistent with the Department’s treatment of the freight expense of other respondents in the administrative review and (2) to redetermine the application of facts otherwise available for information that Nachi submitted on physical bearing characteristics.3 On May 17, 2010, the Department filed its results of redetermination pursuant to remand in accordance with the CIT’s order.4 On July 29, 2011, the CIT affirmed, in part, the Department’s first remand, which resulted in a weighted-average dumping margin of 13.91 percent for Nachi and a weighted-average dumping margin of 8.02 percent for NTN.5 The Court remanded issues regarding Nachi, NTN, and other respondent companies, relating to the Department’s use of zeroing and model match methodology.6 On June 4, 2012, the Court stayed the proceedings pending the appeal of Union Steel v. United States, which concerned zeroing.7 After the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Union Steel, the Court lifted the stay and ‘‘relieve[d] Commerce of the directive concerning zeroing’’ in JTEKT III but ‘‘maintain[ed] the directive . . . as to the claim brought by NTN’’ pertaining to the model match methodology.8 In Final Second Remand, the Department further explained its analysis of this issue but did not further recalculate the weighted-average dumping margins for any respondents in the litigation.9 The Court affirmed the Department’s second 2 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 2006) (AFBs 16). 3 See JTEKT Corporation v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d (CIT 2009). 4 See Final Results of Redetermination, JTEKT Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06– 00250 (CIT December 18, 2009), dated May 17, 2010 (Final First Remand), available at: https:// enforcement.trade.gov/remands/09-147.pdf. 5 See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (CIT 2011). 6 Id. 7 Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 8 See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06–00250, slip op. 14–13 at 7 (CIT February 10, 2014) (JTEKT III). 9 See Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, JTEKT Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06–00250 (CIT January 29, 2010 and February 10, 2014), dated May 17, 2010 (Final Second Remand). E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices Notification to Interested Parties remand in its entirety on February 25, 2015, and entered judgment.10 This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 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 CIT’s February 25, 2015, judgment affirming the Final Second Remand constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with AFBs 16. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Dated: March 11, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Amended Final Results AGENCY: Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending AFBs 16 with respect to Nachi’s and NTN’s weighted-average dumping margins as redetermined in the Final First Remand. The revised weightedaverage dumping margin for the period May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, for Nachi is 13.91 percent. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for the period May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, for NTN is 8.02 percent. 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 and upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries of the subject merchandise from NTN or Nachi using the revised assessment rates calculated by the Department in the Final First Remand. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Cash Deposit Requirements Because we revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan effective September 15, 2011, no cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties on future entries of subject merchandise will be required.11 10 See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06–00250, slip op. 15–18 (CIT February 25, 2015). 11 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 16771 (March 26, 2014). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 [FR Doc. 2015–06137 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–602–808] Silicomanganese From Australia: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: March 17, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok at (202) 482–4162 or Thomas Martin at (202) 482–3936, Office IV, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On February 19, 2015, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition concerning imports of silicomanganese from Australia filed in proper form on behalf of Felman Production, LLC (‘‘Petitioner’’).1 Petitioner is a domestic producer of silicomanganese.2 On February 20, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification with respect to the industry support section of the Petition.3 Petitioner filed a response to this request on February 23, 2015.4 On February 24, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification on certain portions of the Petition.5 Petitioner filed a response to 1 See Petitioner’s submission entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Silicomanganese from Australia,’’ dated February 19, 2015 (‘‘Petition’’). 2 See Petition, at 2–3. 3 See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Silicomanganese from Australia: Supplemental Question Regarding Industry Support,’’ dated February 20, 2015. 4 See Industry Support Supplement to the Petition, dated February 23, 2015 (‘‘First Petition Supplement’’). 5 See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 13829 this request on February 27, 2015.6 On March 3 and 4, 2015, Department personnel spoke with Petitioner’s counsel via telephone, requesting additional information and clarification.7 Petitioner filed a response to these requests on March 5, 2015.8 In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), Petitioner alleges that silicomanganese from Australia is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.9 Period of Investigation Because the Petition was filed on February 19, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1) the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is silicomanganese from Australia. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Comments on Scope of the Investigation During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection Antidumping Duties on Imports of Silicomanganese from Australia: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated February 24, 2015. 6 See Supplement to the Petition, dated February 27, 2015 (‘‘Second Petition Supplement’’). 7 See Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the File entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicomanganese from Australia: Telephone Conference with Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated March 3, 2015; Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the File entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Silicomanganese from Australia: Telephone Conference with Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated March 4, 2015. 8 See Supplement to the Petition, dated March 5, 2015 (‘‘Third Petition Supplement’’). 9 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petition’’ section below. E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13828-13829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-804]

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2004-2005

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 25, 2015, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or Court) issued final judgment in JTEKT Corp. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 06-00250 (JTEKT Corp.), affirming the
Department of Commerce's (the Department) final results of
redetermination pursuant to remand.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See Final Second Remand Redetermination, Consol. Court No.
06-250, available at: https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-13.pdf
(Final Second Remand).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 final
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan, covering the period May 1,
2004 through April 30, 2005, and is amending the final results with
respect to Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation and NTN Corporation.

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, Office I, Enforcement
and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 14, 2006, the Department published AFBs 16.\2\ Nachi-
Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi), NTN Corporation (NTN), and other parties
appealed AFBs 16 to the CIT. On December 18, 2009, the CIT remanded
AFBs 16 for the Department to, inter alia, (1) redetermine NTN's
freight expenses using a method that is consistent with the
Department's treatment of the freight expense of other respondents in
the administrative review and (2) to redetermine the application of
facts otherwise available for information that Nachi submitted on
physical bearing characteristics.\3\ On May 17, 2010, the Department
filed its results of redetermination pursuant to remand in accordance
with the CIT's order.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 2006) (AFBs 16).
\3\ See JTEKT Corporation v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d (CIT
2009).
\4\ See Final Results of Redetermination, JTEKT Corporation v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 06-00250 (CIT December 18, 2009),
dated May 17, 2010 (Final First Remand), available at: https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/09-147.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On July 29, 2011, the CIT affirmed, in part, the Department's first
remand, which resulted in a weighted-average dumping margin of 13.91
percent for Nachi and a weighted-average dumping margin of 8.02 percent
for NTN.\5\ The Court remanded issues regarding Nachi, NTN, and other
respondent companies, relating to the Department's use of zeroing and
model match methodology.\6\ On June 4, 2012, the Court stayed the
proceedings pending the appeal of Union Steel v. United States, which
concerned zeroing.\7\ After the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in
Union Steel, the Court lifted the stay and ``relieve[d] Commerce of the
directive concerning zeroing'' in JTEKT III but ``maintain[ed] the
directive . . . as to the claim brought by NTN'' pertaining to the
model match methodology.\8\ In Final Second Remand, the Department
further explained its analysis of this issue but did not further
recalculate the weighted-average dumping margins for any respondents in
the litigation.\9\ The Court affirmed the Department's second

[[Page 13829]]

remand in its entirety on February 25, 2015, and entered judgment.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (CIT
2011).
\6\ Id.
\7\ Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir.
2013).
\8\ See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06-
00250, slip op. 14-13 at 7 (CIT February 10, 2014) (JTEKT III).
\9\ See Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, JTEKT Corporation v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 06-00250 (CIT January 29, 2010 and
February 10, 2014), dated May 17, 2010 (Final Second Remand).
\10\ See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06-
00250, slip op. 15-18 (CIT February 25, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 CIT's February 25, 2015, judgment
affirming the Final Second Remand constitutes a final decision of that
court that is not in harmony with AFBs 16. This notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Amended Final Results

Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is
amending AFBs 16 with respect to Nachi's and NTN's weighted-average
dumping margins as redetermined in the Final First Remand. The revised
weighted-average dumping margin for the period May 1, 2004, to April
30, 2005, for Nachi is 13.91 percent. The revised weighted-average
dumping margin for the period May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, for NTN
is 8.02 percent.
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 and upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties on appropriate entries of the subject merchandise from NTN or
Nachi using the revised assessment rates calculated by the Department
in the Final First Remand.

Cash Deposit Requirements

Because we revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and
parts thereof from Japan effective September 15, 2011, no cash deposits
for estimated antidumping duties on future entries of subject
merchandise will be required.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan and the
United Kingdom: Final Results of Sunset Reviews and Revocation of
Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 16771 (March 26, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

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.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-06137 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.