Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51536-51538 [2015-21048]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51536
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
importation.7 The Department further
determined that the mopping kits at
issue do not meet the exclusion criteria
for finished goods kits and, thus, are
covered by the scope of the Orders
because they lack the disposable mop
ends at the time of importation.8
In Rubbermaid I the Court held that
the Department failed to adequately
explain its reasoning in the final scope
ruling that the Quick-Connect frames
and Quick-Connect handles at issue did
not meet the finished merchandise
exclusion because they were ‘‘designed
to function collaboratively’’ with other
components to form a completed
cleaning device.9 Thus, on remand, the
Court ordered the Department to
reconsider its analysis of the finished
merchandise exclusion and its
application to products designed to
work in conjunction with other goods,10
and to further consider Rubbermaid’s
argument distinguishing ‘‘finished
goods’’ (to be excluded) from
‘‘intermediate goods’’ (to be included).11
In addition, the Court ordered the
Department to reconsider its alleged
distinction between merchandise that is
designed to be adaptable,
interchangeable and flexible, and
merchandise that is permanently
assembled, in light of any appropriate
scope rulings.12 The Court also held that
if the Department continues to find that
the Quick-Connect handles and QuickConnect frames do not constitute
‘‘finished merchandise’’, then the
Department must affirmatively define
that term, taking into account
Rubbermaid’s proposed definition.13
Lastly, concerning the mopping kits at
issue, the Court ordered the Department
to reconsider its interpretation of the
finished goods kit exclusion, taking into
account applicable scope rulings that
discuss the adaptable, interchangeable
nature of products for purposes of this
exclusion.14
In the Remand Results, the
Department clarified its interpretation of
the exclusion criteria for ‘‘finished
merchandise’’ and ‘‘finished goods
kits.’’ 15 The Department first found that,
pursuant to its interpretation of the
7 See Final Scope Ruling on Cleaning System
Components at 9.
8 Id.
9 See Rubbermaid I, Slip Op. 14–113 at 17–20.
10 Id. at 20.
11 Id. at 20–23.
12 Id. at 23–27.
13 Id. at 28–29.
14 Id. at 30–33, referencing Banner Stands Scope
Ruling and the Memorandum to Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Final Scope
Ruling on EZ Fabric Wall Systems,’’ (November 9,
2011) (EZ Fabric Wall Systems Scope Ruling).
15 See Remand Results 11–12, 14–17.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Aug 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
finished merchandise exclusion, the
quick-connect frames and quick-connect
handles were excluded from the Orders
because (1) they are comprised of
extruded aluminum and non-extruded
aluminum components (thus satisfying
the ‘‘aluminum extrusions as parts . . .’’
definition of the exclusion), and (2) they
are ‘‘fully and permanently assembled
and completed at the time of entry,’’
regardless of whether they are later
incorporated with other components, or
assembled into a larger downstream
product (i.e., a subassembly).16
With respect to the mopping kits, the
Department found that these products
met the exclusion for finished goods kits
because (1) they were comprised of
aluminum extrusions plus an additional
non-extruded aluminum component
which went beyond mere fasteners, and
(2) in light of the certain other scope
rulings,17 the interchangeable
disposable mop end was not necessary
to meet the exclusion for a finished
goods kit.18 On July 22, 2015, the CIT
sustained the Department’s Remand
Results.19
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken 20 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the
CAFC has held that, pursuant to
sections 516A(c) and (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 July 22, 2015, judgment in
Rubbermaid II sustaining the
Department’s decision in the Remand
Results to find that the Quick-Connect
frames, Quick-Connect handles, and
mopping kits at issue to be excluded
from the scope of the Orders, constitutes
a final decision of that court that is not
in harmony with the Department’s Final
Scope Ruling on Cleaning System
Components. This notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken. Accordingly,
the Department will continue the
suspension of liquidation of the QuickConnect frames, Quick-Connect
handles, and mopping kits at issue
pending expiration of the period of
appeal or, if appealed, pending a final
and conclusive court decision.
16 Id.
at 11–12, 14–17.
Banner Stands Scope Ruling; see also EZ
Wall Systems Scope Ruling.
18 Id.
19 See Rubbermaid II, Slip Op. 15–79 at 15.
20 See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
17 See
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Amended Final Determination
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to the Final Scope
Ruling on Cleaning System
Components, the Department amends its
final scope ruling. The Department finds
that the scope of the Orders does not
cover the 13 product models of QuickConnect frames, Quick-Connect
handles, and mopping kits addressed in
the underlying Scope Request filed by
Rubbermaid. The Department will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit
rate will be zero percent for
Rubbermaid’s Quick-Connect frames,
Quick-Connect handles, and mopping
kits. In the event that the CIT’s ruling is
not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by
the CAFC, the Department will instruct
CBP to liquidate entries of Rubbermaid’s
Quick-Connect frames, Quick-Connect
handles, and mopping kits without
regard to antidumping and/or
countervailing duties, and to lift
suspension of liquidation of such
entries.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: August 19, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–21047 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–955]
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Rescission of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is rescinding its
administrative review of the
countervailing duty (CVD) order on
certain magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs)
from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) for the period January 1, 2013,
through December 31, 2013 (POR).
DATES: Effective date: August 25, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VII, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3586.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Notices
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On September 2, 2014, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to
Request Administrative Review’’ of the
CVD order on MCBs from the PRC for
the POR.1 The deadline for the
completion of the preliminary results is
August 31, 2015.2 On September 30,
2014, Petitioner in this proceeding,
Resco Products, Inc., and an interested
party, Magnesita Refractories Company
(Magnesita), submitted a timely request
for an administrative review of five
companies: (1) Fedmet Resources
Corporation; (2) Fengchi Imp. and Exp.
Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City (Fengchi Co.);
(3) Fengchi Mining Co., Ltd. of
Haicheng City (Fengchi Mining); (4)
Fengchi Refractories Corp. (Fengchi
Refractories); and (5) Puyang
Refractories Co., Ltd. (collectively,
Companies Subject to Review).3 On
October 30, 2014, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice of initiation of an administrative
review on the CVD order on MCBs from
the PRC with respect to the Companies
Subject to Review.4
The Department stated in the
Initiation Notice that it intended to rely
on U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) data to select respondents.5 On
November 5, 2014, we released U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
entry data to interested parties for
comments regarding respondent
selection.6 On November 14, 2014,
1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 79 FR 51958
(September 2, 2014).
2 See Department Memoranda, ‘‘Certain Magnesia
Carbon Bricks from the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,’’
(May 22, 2015), and ‘‘Certain Magnesia Carbon
Bricks from the People’s Republic of China: Second
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,’’
(July 1, 2015).
3 See Letter to the Secretary from Petitioner and
Magnesita, ‘‘Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from
the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review,’’ (September 30, 2014).
4 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR
64565, 64568 (October 30, 2014) (Initiation Notice);
see also Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR
66694, 66695 (November 10, 2014), and Initiation
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 37588, 37596 (July
1, 2015), correcting printing errors in the Initiation
Notice.
5 See Initiation Notice at ‘‘Respondent Selection.’’
6 See Department Memorandum, ‘‘2013
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People’s
Republic of China: U.S. Customs and Border
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Aug 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
Fengchi Co. submitted comments on the
Original CBP Data, and expressed
concerns that the Original CBP Data
may not accurately reflect POR entries
of subject merchandise.7 No other party
commented on the Original CBP Data.
On December 19, 2014, we received
timely no shipment certifications from
Fengchi Co., Fengchi Mining, and
Fengchi Refractories.8 These three
companies also requested that we
rescind this administrative review.9
Although Fengchi Co., Fengchi Mining,
and Fengchi Refractories each certified
that they had had no reviewable entries
of subject merchandise during the POR,
the Original CBP Data did show that
Fengchi Co. had exports of subject
merchandise that were entered during
the POR.10 As a result, in our
Respondent Selection Memorandum, we
selected Fengchi Co. as our sole
mandatory respondent.11
Subsequently, the Department found
that its data query that generated the
Original CBP Data had been constructed
for an incorrect period. The Department
placed Corrected CBP Data onto the
record on July 22, 2015, and gave
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on these data.12 Our review of
the Corrected CBP Data led us to
conclude that there were no entries of
MCBs from the PRC that were subject to
countervailing duties with respect to the
Companies Subject to Review during the
POR.13 Accordingly, we sent requests to
CBP to notify us if there was any
indication from CBP ports that
shipments of MCBs from the PRC
regarding the Companies Subject to
Review entered the United States during
Protection Entry Data,’’ (November 5, 2014)
(Original CBP Data).
7 See Letter to the Secretary from Fengchi Co.,
‘‘Magnesia Carbon Bricks form the People’s
Republic of China, Case No. C–570–955: Comments
on U.S. Customs and Border Protection Entry Data,’’
(November 14, 2014) (Fengchi Co. CBP Data
Comments).
8 See Letter to the Secretary from Fengchi Co.,
Fengchi Mining, and Fengchi Refractories,
‘‘Magnesia Carbon Brick from the People’s Republic
of China, Case No. C–570–955: No Shipments
Letter,’’ (December 19, 2014).
9 Id.
10 See Original CBP Data.
11 See Department Memorandum,
‘‘Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the
People’s Republic of China: Respondent Selection,’’
(January 28, 2015) (Respondent Selection
Memorandum).
12 See Department Memorandum,
‘‘Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the
People’s Republic of China: Respondent Selection—
Corrected POR Entry Information,’’ (July 14, 2015)
(Corrected CBP Data).
13 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51537
the POR.14 We received no information
from CBP to contradict the Corrected
CBP Data.
On July 28, 2015, Resco, Magnesita,
and Harbison Walker International
submitted timely comments on the
Corrected CBP Data, requesting that the
Department ask CBP for entry summary
information regarding the entries listed
in the Corrected CBP Data.15 No other
party commented on the Corrected CBP
Data.
On August 12, 2015, the Department
issued a memorandum stating that it
intended to rescind this review based on
the lack of suspended entries for
Companies Subject to Review.16 We
invited parties to comment on our intent
to rescind this administrative review; 17
we did not receive any comments from
any interested party.
Rescission of Review
Section 351.213(d)(3) of the
Department’s regulations states that
‘‘{the} Secretary may rescind an
administrative review, in whole or only
with respect to a particular exporter or
producer, if the Secretary concludes
that, during the period covered by the
review, there were no entries, exports,
or sales of the subject merchandise, as
the case may be.’’ 18 At the end of a
review, the suspended entries are
liquidated at the assessment rate
calculated for the review period.19
Therefore, for an administrative review
to be conducted there must be a
suspended entry to be liquidated at the
newly calculated assessment rate. The
Department’s practice of rescinding
annual reviews when there are no
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR has been upheld by the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.20
In this instance, because the Corrected
CBP Data show there are no suspended
14 See CBP Inquiries, Message Nos.: 5174303
(June 23, 2015); 5174304 (June 23, 2015); 5198315
(July 17, 2015); and 5219308 (August 7, 2015).
15 See Letter to the Secretary from the Magnesia
Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee, ‘‘Certain
Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People’s Republic
of China: Petitioners’ Comments on the CBP Data,’’
(July 28, 2015).
16 See Department Memorandum,
‘‘Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the
People’s Republic of China; Intent to Rescind
Administrative Review,’’ (August 12, 2015).
17 Id.
18 See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
India: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 79 FR 52300 (September 3,
2014) (Mushrooms from India); see also Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil: Notice of
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 77 FR 32498 (June 1, 2012).
19 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2). See also section
751(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
20 See Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States,
346 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
51538
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Notices
entries from the Companies Subject to
Review upon which to assess duties for
the POR, the Department is rescinding
this review of the countervailing duty
order on MCBs from the PRC pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.231(d)(3). The
Department intends to issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP
15 days after the date of publication of
this notice.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as a reminder to
parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is published in
accordance with section 751 of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: August 18, 2015.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015–21048 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Expenditure
Survey of Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Tournaments and Participants
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before October 26,
2015.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Direct all written comments
to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6616,
14th and Constitution Avenue NW.,
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Aug 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at JJessup@doc.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to George Silva at (301) 427–
8503 or george.silva@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
This request is for a new collection of
information.
The objective of the study is to collect
information on the earnings and
expenditures of Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) tournament
operators and participants. The study
will use two survey instruments to
collect information from tournament
operators and participants. One survey
will ask tournament operators to
characterize and quantify their
operating costs and income sources in
addition to describing their tournament
participants. The other survey
instrument will ask fishing tournament
participants to estimate their
expenditures associated with travel to,
entering, and participating in the
tournament.
The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) will collect cost and earnings
data from all tournaments registered
within the year (approximately 260
based on recent years’ tournament
registration data). In addition, NMFS
will select fifty percent of registered
tournaments to distribute expenditure
surveys to anglers registered for those
tournament events. The Atlantic HMS
Management Division is currently
consulting with tournament organizers
and participants to design the survey
instruments to ensure NMFS captures
data on all relevant expenditures.
As specified in the MagnusonStevenson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1996 (and
reauthorized in 2007), NMFS is required
to enumerate the economic impacts of
the policies it implements on fishing
participants and coastal communities.
The cost and earnings data collected in
this survey will be used to estimate the
economic contributions and impacts of
Atlantic HMS tournaments regionally.
II. Method of Collection
The primary data collection vehicle
will be paper and/or internet-based
survey forms delivered at tournament
events. Telephone and personal
interviews may be employed to
supplement and verify written survey
responses.
III. Data
OMB Control Number: 0648–XXXX.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission
(request for a new information
collection).
Affected Public: Members of the
public.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
260 tournament operators and 2,500
tournament participants.
Estimated Time Per Response: 15
minutes per survey.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 690.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting
costs.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: August 19, 2015.
Sarah Brabson,
NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015–20890 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Availability of Seats for National
Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils,
Correction
Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice and request for
applications; correction.
AGENCY:
ONMS published a request for
applications for vacant seats on seven of
its 13 national marine sanctuary
advisory councils on August 14, 2015
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51536-51538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21048]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-955]
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its
administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain
magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC)
for the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013 (POR).
DATES: Effective date: August 25, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3586.
[[Page 51537]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 2, 2014, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review''
of the CVD order on MCBs from the PRC for the POR.\1\ The deadline for
the completion of the preliminary results is August 31, 2015.\2\ On
September 30, 2014, Petitioner in this proceeding, Resco Products,
Inc., and an interested party, Magnesita Refractories Company
(Magnesita), submitted a timely request for an administrative review of
five companies: (1) Fedmet Resources Corporation; (2) Fengchi Imp. and
Exp. Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City (Fengchi Co.); (3) Fengchi Mining Co.,
Ltd. of Haicheng City (Fengchi Mining); (4) Fengchi Refractories Corp.
(Fengchi Refractories); and (5) Puyang Refractories Co., Ltd.
(collectively, Companies Subject to Review).\3\ On October 30, 2014, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department published in
the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review
on the CVD order on MCBs from the PRC with respect to the Companies
Subject to Review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 79 FR 51958 (September 2, 2014).
\2\ See Department Memoranda, ``Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks
from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review,'' (May 22, 2015), and ``Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from
the People's Republic of China: Second Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review,'' (July 1, 2015).
\3\ See Letter to the Secretary from Petitioner and Magnesita,
``Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of
China: Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,'' (September 30,
2014).
\4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 64565, 64568 (October 30, 2014)
(Initiation Notice); see also Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 66694, 66695
(November 10, 2014), and Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 37588, 37596 (July
1, 2015), correcting printing errors in the Initiation Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department stated in the Initiation Notice that it intended to
rely on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data to select
respondents.\5\ On November 5, 2014, we released U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) entry data to interested parties for comments
regarding respondent selection.\6\ On November 14, 2014, Fengchi Co.
submitted comments on the Original CBP Data, and expressed concerns
that the Original CBP Data may not accurately reflect POR entries of
subject merchandise.\7\ No other party commented on the Original CBP
Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Initiation Notice at ``Respondent Selection.''
\6\ See Department Memorandum, ``2013 Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the
People's Republic of China: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Entry
Data,'' (November 5, 2014) (Original CBP Data).
\7\ See Letter to the Secretary from Fengchi Co., ``Magnesia
Carbon Bricks form the People's Republic of China, Case No. C-570-
955: Comments on U.S. Customs and Border Protection Entry Data,''
(November 14, 2014) (Fengchi Co. CBP Data Comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 19, 2014, we received timely no shipment certifications
from Fengchi Co., Fengchi Mining, and Fengchi Refractories.\8\ These
three companies also requested that we rescind this administrative
review.\9\ Although Fengchi Co., Fengchi Mining, and Fengchi
Refractories each certified that they had had no reviewable entries of
subject merchandise during the POR, the Original CBP Data did show that
Fengchi Co. had exports of subject merchandise that were entered during
the POR.\10\ As a result, in our Respondent Selection Memorandum, we
selected Fengchi Co. as our sole mandatory respondent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Letter to the Secretary from Fengchi Co., Fengchi
Mining, and Fengchi Refractories, ``Magnesia Carbon Brick from the
People's Republic of China, Case No. C-570-955: No Shipments
Letter,'' (December 19, 2014).
\9\ Id.
\10\ See Original CBP Data.
\11\ See Department Memorandum, ``Administrative Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the
People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection,'' (January 28,
2015) (Respondent Selection Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, the Department found that its data query that
generated the Original CBP Data had been constructed for an incorrect
period. The Department placed Corrected CBP Data onto the record on
July 22, 2015, and gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on
these data.\12\ Our review of the Corrected CBP Data led us to conclude
that there were no entries of MCBs from the PRC that were subject to
countervailing duties with respect to the Companies Subject to Review
during the POR.\13\ Accordingly, we sent requests to CBP to notify us
if there was any indication from CBP ports that shipments of MCBs from
the PRC regarding the Companies Subject to Review entered the United
States during the POR.\14\ We received no information from CBP to
contradict the Corrected CBP Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Department Memorandum, ``Administrative Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the
People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection--Corrected POR
Entry Information,'' (July 14, 2015) (Corrected CBP Data).
\13\ Id.
\14\ See CBP Inquiries, Message Nos.: 5174303 (June 23, 2015);
5174304 (June 23, 2015); 5198315 (July 17, 2015); and 5219308
(August 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 28, 2015, Resco, Magnesita, and Harbison Walker
International submitted timely comments on the Corrected CBP Data,
requesting that the Department ask CBP for entry summary information
regarding the entries listed in the Corrected CBP Data.\15\ No other
party commented on the Corrected CBP Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Letter to the Secretary from the Magnesia Carbon Bricks
Fair Trade Committee, ``Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the
People's Republic of China: Petitioners' Comments on the CBP Data,''
(July 28, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2015, the Department issued a memorandum stating that
it intended to rescind this review based on the lack of suspended
entries for Companies Subject to Review.\16\ We invited parties to
comment on our intent to rescind this administrative review; \17\ we
did not receive any comments from any interested party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Department Memorandum, ``Administrative Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the
People's Republic of China; Intent to Rescind Administrative
Review,'' (August 12, 2015).
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rescission of Review
Section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations states that
``{the{time} Secretary may rescind an administrative review, in whole
or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the
Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review,
there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise, as
the case may be.'' \18\ At the end of a review, the suspended entries
are liquidated at the assessment rate calculated for the review
period.\19\ Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted
there must be a suspended entry to be liquidated at the newly
calculated assessment rate. The Department's practice of rescinding
annual reviews when there are no entries of subject merchandise during
the POR has been upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Notice
of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 52300
(September 3, 2014) (Mushrooms from India); see also Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 32498 (June 1, 2012).
\19\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2). See also section 751(a)(1)(A) of
the Act.
\20\ See Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, because the Corrected CBP Data show there are no
suspended
[[Page 51538]]
entries from the Companies Subject to Review upon which to assess
duties for the POR, the Department is rescinding this review of the
countervailing duty order on MCBs from the PRC pursuant to 19 CFR
351.231(d)(3). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of
this notice.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: August 18, 2015.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-21048 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
