Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 32089-32090 [2015-13828]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notifications to All Parties This notice also serves as a 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. We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 29, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Appendix—Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether the Department Properly Adjusted for VAT Comment 2: Whether the Department Properly Applied Its Differential Pricing Analysis Comment 3: Whether Golden Dragon Accurately Reported Its Copper Consumption Rate Comment 4: Whether Golden Dragon Is Entitled to a By-Product Offset Comment 5: Whether the Department Accurately Calculated Credit Expenses Comment 6: Whether the Department Accurately Calculated the Truck Surrogate Value Comment 7: Whether the Department Accurately Calculated the Solvents Surrogate Value Recommendation [FR Doc. 2015–13809 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–832] Pure Magnesium From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the 2009– 2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘Court’’) sustained the Final Remand Results 1 issued by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) concerning the 2009– 2010 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People’s Republic of China.2 In the Final Remand Results, the Department changed the data source for inland freight and selected different financial statements for the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios, while it continued to find that the untimely and thus previously rejected factual information was irrelevant and showed no ‘‘fraud’’ on the part of the respondent, Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (‘‘TMI’’). Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken,3 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,4 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 pure magnesium from the People’s Republic of China covering the period of review (‘‘POR’’) from May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010.5 DATES: Effective Date: May 31, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eve Wang, AD/CVD Operations Office III, AGENCY: 1 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Court Order No. 12–00006, Slip Op. 13–9 (CIT 2013), dated January 22, 2013 (‘‘Final Remand Results’’). 2 See US Magnesium LLC v. United States, Court Order No. 12–00006, Slip Op. 15–47 (CIT May 21, 2015) (‘‘TMI II’’). 3 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’). 4 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’). 5 See Pure Magnesium from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76945 (December 9, 2011) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (‘‘Final Results’’). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32089 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6231. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 9, 2011, the Department issued the Final Results.6 US Magnesium LLC (‘‘USM’’) challenged certain aspects of the Department’s Final Results. On January 22, 2013, the Court remanded the Final Results to the Department: (1) To consider whether previously rejected factual information contained prima facie evidence of fraud by TMI in accordance with the factors outlined in Home Products,7 and (2) to explain its rationale for selecting Infobanc data based on substantial evidence on the record or, alternatively, to select a new surrogate value for truck freight.8 Additionally, the Department requested a voluntary remand to reconsider: (1) The selection of Hindalco Industries Limited’s (‘‘Hindalco’’) financial statements for calculating surrogate financial ratios, and (2) USM’s claim that the Department made errors when calculating the surrogate value for labor.9 In accordance with TMI I, the Department opened the administrative record to accept the previously rejected factual information and concluded that this factual information did not demonstrate prima facie evidence of fraud by TMI.10 The Department also determined that the Infobanc data did not constitute the best information available to value truck freight and, instead, selected World Bank data for the Final Remand Results.11 Additionally, the Department selected Madras Aluminum Company’s financial statements to value the surrogate financial ratios. Lastly, the Department corrected errors in its calculation of the labor rate.12 On May 21, 2015, the Court entered judgement sustaining the Final Remand Results entirely. Timken Notice In Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 6 See Final Results. Home Prods. Int’l v. United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (‘‘Home Products’’). 8 See US Magnesium LLC v. United States, Court Order No. 12–00006, Slip Op. 13–9 (CIT January 22, 2013) (‘‘TMI I’’). 9 Id. 10 See Final Remand Results. 11 Id. 12 Id. 7 See E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM 05JNN1 32090 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices 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. 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 judgment in TMI II sustaining the Final Remand Results constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department’s Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. Dated: May 29, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Amended Final Results International Trade Administration Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the Final Results with respect to the surrogate value for truck freight and financial ratios, in addition to correcting the errors in its calculation of the labor rate. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for TMI during the period May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010, is as follows: [FR Doc. 2015–13828 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [A–489–501] Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by interested parties,1 the Department of WEIGHTED-AVERAGE DUMPING Commerce (the Department) is MARGIN: conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded Weighted- carbon steel standard pipe and tube average products (welded pipe and tube) from Exporter dumping Turkey.2 The period of review (POR) is margin (percent) May 1, 2013, to April 30, 2014. This review covers the following companies: TMI .............................................. 51.26 Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S., and Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Accordingly, the Department will Ticaret A.S. (collectively ‘‘Borusan’’); continue the suspension of liquidation ERBOSAN Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve of the subject merchandise pending the Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan); Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. (Toscelik) and expiration of the period of appeal or, if Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. (Tosyali) appealed, pending a final and (collectively ‘‘Toscelik’’).3 The conclusive court decision. In the event the Court’s ruling is not appealed or, if 1 Wheatland Tube Company, Borusan appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Department will instruct U.S. Customs Borusan Istikbal Ticaret requested the instant and Border Protection to assess administrative review. 2 See Initiation of Antidumping and antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 36462 (June 27, 2014) (Initiation Notice). The by the above listed exporter at the rate Initiation Notice inadvertently referenced the listed above. incorrect order title. This Federal Register notice asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Cash Deposit Requirements Since the Final Remand Results, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for TMI.13 Therefore, the cash deposit rate for TMI does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results. 13 See Pure Magnesium From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–2012, 79 FR 94 (January 2, 2014); Pure Magnesium From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014, 80 FR 26541 (May 8, 2015). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 AGENCY: and the decision memorandum accompanying these preliminary results use the original and correct order title, as reflected in the original 1986 order. See Antidumping Duty Order; Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey, 51 FR 17784 (May 15, 1986). 3 In prior segments of this proceeding, we treated Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. as the same legal entity. See, e.g., Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012–2013, 79 FR 71087, 71088 (December 1, 2014). We preliminarily determine that there is no evidence on the record for altering such treatment of these two parties, referred to collectively as Borusan. Similarly, in prior segments of this proceeding we treated Toscelik and Tosyali as the same legal entity. See, e.g., id. There is also PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Department preliminarily determines that Borusan and Toscelik both made U.S. sales of subject merchandise below normal value. In addition, the Department preliminarily finds that Erbosan had no shipments. The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review.’’ DATES: Effective Date: June 5, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Deborah Scott, or Robert James at (202) 482–2924, (202) 482–2657, or (202) 482–0649, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the order is welded pipe and tube. The welded pipe and tube subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheading 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey; 2013–2014 Administrative Review’’ (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Methodology The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The no record evidence for altering this treatment. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we are treating Toscelik and Tosyali as the same legal entity. E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM 05JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32089-32090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13828]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-832]


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

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'' or ``Court'') sustained the Final Remand Results \1\ 
issued by the Department of Commerce (``Department'') concerning the 
2009-2010 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure 
magnesium from the People's Republic of China.\2\ In the Final Remand 
Results, the Department changed the data source for inland freight and 
selected different financial statements for the calculation of the 
surrogate financial ratios, while it continued to find that the 
untimely and thus previously rejected factual information was 
irrelevant and showed no ``fraud'' on the part of the respondent, 
Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (``TMI'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Court Order No. 12-00006, Slip Op. 13-9 (CIT 2013), dated 
January 22, 2013 (``Final Remand Results'').
    \2\ See US Magnesium LLC v. United States, Court Order No. 12-
00006, Slip Op. 15-47 (CIT May 21, 2015) (``TMI II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken,\3\ as clarified by 
Diamond Sawblades,\4\ 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 pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China covering 
the period of review (``POR'') from May 1, 2009, through April 30, 
2010.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (``Timken'').
    \4\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Diamond Sawblades'').
    \5\ See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76945 (December 9, 2011) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Final Results'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: May 31, 2015

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eve Wang, AD/CVD Operations Office 
III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 9, 2011, the Department issued the Final Results.\6\ US 
Magnesium LLC (``USM'') challenged certain aspects of the Department's 
Final Results. On January 22, 2013, the Court remanded the Final 
Results to the Department: (1) To consider whether previously rejected 
factual information contained prima facie evidence of fraud by TMI in 
accordance with the factors outlined in Home Products,\7\ and (2) to 
explain its rationale for selecting Infobanc data based on substantial 
evidence on the record or, alternatively, to select a new surrogate 
value for truck freight.\8\ Additionally, the Department requested a 
voluntary remand to reconsider: (1) The selection of Hindalco 
Industries Limited's (``Hindalco'') financial statements for 
calculating surrogate financial ratios, and (2) USM's claim that the 
Department made errors when calculating the surrogate value for 
labor.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Final Results.
    \7\ See Home Prods. Int'l v. United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. 
Cir. 2011) (``Home Products'').
    \8\ See US Magnesium LLC v. United States, Court Order No. 12-
00006, Slip Op. 13-9 (CIT January 22, 2013) (``TMI I'').
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with TMI I, the Department opened the administrative 
record to accept the previously rejected factual information and 
concluded that this factual information did not demonstrate prima facie 
evidence of fraud by TMI.\10\ The Department also determined that the 
Infobanc data did not constitute the best information available to 
value truck freight and, instead, selected World Bank data for the 
Final Remand Results.\11\ Additionally, the Department selected Madras 
Aluminum Company's financial statements to value the surrogate 
financial ratios. Lastly, the Department corrected errors in its 
calculation of the labor rate.\12\ On May 21, 2015, the Court entered 
judgement sustaining the Final Remand Results entirely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Final Remand Results.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the 
CAFC held that, pursuant to section

[[Page 32090]]

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 
judgment in TMI II sustaining the Final Remand Results constitutes a 
final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the 
Department's 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 is 
amending the Final Results with respect to the surrogate value for 
truck freight and financial ratios, in addition to correcting the 
errors in its calculation of the labor rate. The revised weighted-
average dumping margin for TMI during the period May 1, 2009, through 
April 30, 2010, is as follows:

                    Weighted-Average Dumping Margin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                          Exporter                              dumping
                                                                margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMI.........................................................       51.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the above listed exporter at 
the rate listed above.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Since the Final Remand Results, the Department has established a 
new cash deposit rate for TMI.\13\ Therefore, the cash deposit rate for 
TMI does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final 
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 
79 FR 94 (January 2, 2014); Pure Magnesium From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 26541 (May 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: May 29, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-13828 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P