Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: 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, 55834-55836 [2015-23360]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55834
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
First Responder Network Authority
First Responder Network Authority
Board Meetings
First Responder Network
Authority (FirstNet), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
The Board of the First
Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)
will convene an open public meeting on
October 2, 2015, preceded by open
public meetings of the Board
Committees on October 1, 2015.
DATES: On October 1, 2015 between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight
Time, there will be two open public
meetings of FirstNet’s four Board
Committees. The first meeting is a joint
meeting of the Governance and
Personnel and Finance Committee and
will be held between 8–11:30 a.m.
Eastern Daylight Time. The second
meeting is a joint meeting of the
Technology and Consultation
Committee and will be held between 1–
4:30 p.m. The full FirstNet Board will
hold an open public meeting on October
2, 2015 between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m.
Eastern Daylight Time.
ADDRESSES: The meetings on October 1
and October 2, 2015 will be held at John
Wesley Powell Federal Building, 12201
Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston,
VA 20192.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Uzoma Onyeije, Secretary, FirstNet,
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243,
Reston, VA 20192; telephone: (703)
648–4165; email: uzoma.onyeije@
firstnet.gov. Please direct media
inquiries to Ryan Oremland at (703)
648–4114.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice informs the public that the Board
of FirstNet will convene an open public
meeting on October 2, 2015, preceded
by open public meetings of the Board
Committees on October 1, 2015.
Background: The Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
(Act), Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat. 156
(2012), established FirstNet as an
independent authority within the
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration that is
headed by a Board. The Act directs
FirstNet to ensure the building,
deployment, and operation of a
nationwide, interoperable public safety
broadband network. The FirstNet Board
is responsible for making strategic
decisions regarding FirstNet’s
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
operations. The FirstNet Board held its
first public meeting on September 25,
2012.
Matters to be Considered: FirstNet
will post detailed agendas of each
meeting on its Web site, https://
www.firstnet.gov,prior to the meetings.
The agenda topics are subject to change.
Please note that the subjects that will be
discussed by the Committees and the
Board may involve commercial or
financial information that is privileged
or confidential, personnel matters, or
other legal matters affecting FirstNet. As
such, the Committee chairs and Board
Chair may call for a vote to close the
meetings only for the time necessary to
preserve the confidentiality of such
information, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
§ 1424(e)(2).
Times and Dates of Meetings: On
October 1, 2015 between 8 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, there will
be two open public meetings of
FirstNet’s four Board Committees. The
first meeting is a joint meeting of the
Governance and Personnel and Finance
Committee and will be held between 8–
11:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The
second meeting is a joint meeting of the
Technology and Consultation
Committee and will be held between 1–
4:30 p.m. The full FirstNet Board will
hold an open public meeting on October
2, 2015 between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m.
Eastern Daylight Time.
Place: The meetings on October 1 and
October 2, 2015 will be held at John
Wesley Powell Federal Building, 12201
Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston,
VA 20192.
Other Information: These meetings
are open to the public and press on a
first-come, first-served basis. Space is
limited. In order to get an accurate
headcount, all expected attendees are
asked to provide notice of intent to
attend by sending an email to
BoardRSVP@firstnet.gov. If the number
of RSVPs indicates that expected
attendance has reached capacity,
FirstNet will respond to all subsequent
notices indicating that capacity has been
reached and that in-person viewing may
no longer be available but that the
meeting may still be viewed by webcast
as detailed below. For access to the
meetings, valid government issued
photo identification may be requested
for security reasons.
The meetings are accessible to people
with disabilities. Individuals requiring
accommodations, such as sign language
interpretation or other ancillary aids, are
asked to notify Uzoma Onyeije,
Secretary, FirstNet, at (703) 648–4165 or
uzoma.onyeije@firstnet.gov, at least five
(5) business days before the applicable
meeting(s).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The meetings will also be webcast.
Please refer to FirstNet’s Web site at
www.firstnet.gov for webcast
instructions and other information.
Viewers experiencing any issues with
the live webcast may email support@
sparkstreetdigital.com or call
202.684.3361 x9 for support. A variety
of automated troubleshooting tests are
also available via the ‘‘Troubleshooting
Tips’’ button on the webcast player. The
meetings will also be available to
interested parties by phone. To be
connected to the meetings in listen-only
mode by telephone, please dial 888–
997–9859 and passcode 3572169.
Records: FirstNet maintains records of
all Board proceedings. Minutes of the
Board Meeting and the Committee
meetings will be available at
www.firstnet.gov.
Dated: September 10, 2015.
Eli Veenendaal,
Attorney Advisor, First Responder Network
Authority.
[FR Doc. 2015–23391 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–TL–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–816]
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products From the Republic of Korea:
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 August 31, 2015, the
United States Court of International
Trade (the Court) sustained the
Department of Commerce’s
(Department) Final Remand
Redetermination pertaining to the 19th
administrative review of corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products
(CORE) from the Republic of Korea
(Korea).1
Consistent with the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,2 as
AGENCY:
1 See Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT
Consol. Court No. 14–00098, Slip Op. 15–99
(August 31, 2015); Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand, Court No. 14–00098,
dated July 24, 2015 (Final Remand
Redetermination); and Dongbu Steel Co. v. United
States, 61 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015)
(Remand Order).
2 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Notices
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,3 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 19th administrative review
of CORE from Korea, and that it is
amending the final results with respect
to Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu) and
Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(Union Steel).4 The period of review
(POR) is August 1, 2011, through
February 14, 2012.5
DATES: Effective Date: September 10,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Moore, 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) 482–3692.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On September 26, 2012, the
Department initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on CORE from Korea for the period
August 1, 2011, through July 31, 2012.6
On March 19, 2013, as a result of the
International Trade Commission’s
determination in the third sunset
review, the Department published a
notice that the antidumping duty order
on CORE from Korea would be revoked,
but that it would complete any pending
reviews of entries made prior to
February 14, 2012, the effective date of
revocation.7 For the Preliminary Results,
published on September 9, 2013, the
Department shortened the POR for the
ongoing administrative review to reflect
the effective date of revocation of the
3 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
4 See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–
2012, 79 FR 17503 (March 28, 2014) (Final Results),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (I&D Memo).
5 The period of review ends on February 14, 2012
because the antidumping duty order on CORE from
Korea was revoked effective on this date. See
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 78
FR 16832 (March 19, 2013) (CORE Revocation).
6 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 77 FR 59168
(September 26, 2012).
7 See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Germany and the Republic of Korea:
Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832 (March 19, 2013);
Determinations: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Germany and Korea, 78 FR
15376 (March 11, 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
antidumping order.8 In its preliminary
dumping calculations, the Department
truncated the sales databases to conform
to the shortened POR. However, in
conducting the sales below cost and cost
recovery tests to determine the pool of
home market sales available for the
calculation of normal value, the
Department used the cost of production
database submitted by Dongbu covering
the original August 1, 2011, through
July 31, 2012, review period. For the
Final Results, the Department continued
to use Dongbu’s weighted-average cost
data for the full-year POR in its
antidumping calculations.9 The
Department also used Dongbu’s
weighted-average dumping margin as
the rate for non-examined respondent
Union Steel, because it was the only rate
that was not zero, de minimis, or based
on total facts available.10
Before the Court, Dongbu and Union
Steel challenged the Department’s
determination to use the 12-month cost
of production data in both the cost
recovery and sales below cost tests,
arguing that the language of the cost
recovery test in section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act) requires that prices be measured for
cost recovery against the weightedaverage cost of production for the
shortened POR, and that the Department
accordingly should have requested new
cost data for the revised POR and
recalculated the weighted-average
dumping margin.11 Dongbu and Union
Steel further argued that the
Department’s use of costs outside the
POR in the sales below cost test was
unlawful because the statute requires
that the cost of production ‘‘reasonably
reflect the costs associated with the
production and sale of the merchandise,
during the period of review.’’ 12
In its Remand Order, the Court held
that the language of the statute
‘‘unambiguously prohibited the
Department from using cost data for a
period other than the POR to calculate
the weighted average cost of production
for purposes of the cost recovery test,’’
and that ‘‘{n}othing in the statutory
framework contradicts the cost recovery
test’s plain language regarding the
POR.’’ 13 The Court rejected the
8 See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary
Results of Administrative Review, 78 FR 55057
(September 9, 2013), and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Preliminary
Results).
9 See Final Results, and accompanying I&D Memo
at Comment 1.
10 See Final Results, 79 FR at 17504 & n.11.
11 See Remand Order, 61 F. Supp. 3d at 1381.
12 Id., at 1388.
13 Id., at 1384.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55835
Department’s remaining arguments
regarding the cost recovery test
provision.14
In addition, the Court agreed that the
Department has discretion to include
costs outside of the POR in conducting
the sales below cost test, but found the
Department’s explanation as to why it
included post-review period cost data
inadequate, and remanded to the
Department to ‘‘explain its decision in
this case that the costs incurred after the
POR reasonably reflect the costs of the
product under review.’’ 15
After reopening the record to obtain
cost of production data reflecting the
revised POR from Dongbu, issuing a
draft remand redetermination, and
soliciting comments, the Department
issued the Final Remand
Redetermination on July 24, 2015. In the
Final Remand Redetermination, the
Department modified its dumping
calculations by comparing Dongbu’s
home market sales against cost data
from the revised POR to determine
whether such sales were made at prices
that would provide for the recovery of
costs.16 The Department relied on this
same cost data in administering the
sales below cost test for Dongbu.17
Finally, the Department assigned
Dongbu’s revised dumping margin to
Union Steel.18
Timken Notice
In Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the
CAFC held that, pursuant to section
516A(e) of 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 sustaining the Final
Remand Redetermination 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. 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 (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties on unliquidated entries of subject
14 Id.,
at 1385–88.
at 1388–90.
16 See Final Remand Redetermination at 5.
17 Id.
18 Id., at 6.
15 Id.,
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
55836
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Notices
merchandise exported by the producers
and/or exporters listed below at the
rates listed below.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision, the Department is amending
the Final Results with respect to Dongbu
and Union Steel, plaintiffs in this case.
The revised weighted-average dumping
margins for these producers/exporters
during the period August 1, 2011,
through February 14, 2012, are as
follows:
WEIGHTED-AVERAGE DUMPING
MARGINS
Producer/Exporter
Weighted-average dumping
margin
(percent)
Dongbu .............................
Union Steel .......................
5.38
5.38
Cash Deposit Requirements
The Department notified CBP to
discontinue the collection of cash
deposits on entries of the subject
merchandise, entered or withdrawn
from warehouse, on or after February
14, 2012.19 Therefore, no cash deposit
requirements will be imposed in
response to these amended final results.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 10, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–23360 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST),
Generic Clearance for Usability Data
Collections
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), 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
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
19 See
CORE Revocation, 78 FR at 16833.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Sep 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be
submitted on or before November 16,
2015.
DATES:
Direct all written comments
to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6616,
14th and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at jjessup@doc.gov).
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to Amy Egan, Management
Analyst, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS
1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1710,
telephone 301–975–2819, or via email to
amy.egan@nist.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
This is a request to renew or extend
the expiration date of this currently
approved information collection.
In accordance with the Executive
Order 12862, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), a
non-regulatory agency of the
Department of Commerce, proposes to
conduct a number of data collection
efforts—both quantitative and
qualitative. The data collections will be
designed to determine requirements and
evaluate the usability and utility of
NIST research for measurement and
standardization work. These data
collections efforts may include, but may
not be limited to electronic
methodologies, empirical studies, video
and audio collections, interviews, and
questionnaires. For example, data
collection efforts may include the
password generation study and the user
perceptions of online privacy and
security study. NIST will limit its
inquiries to data collections that solicit
strictly voluntary opinions or responses
and will not collect information that is
required or regulated. The results of the
data collected will be used to guide
NIST research. Steps will be taken to
ensure anonymity of respondents in
each activity covered under this request.
II. Method of Collection
NIST will collect this information by
electronic means when possible, as well
as by mail, fax, telephone and personto-person interviews.
III. Data
OMB Control Number: 0693–0043.
Form Number: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Type of Review: Regular submission
(extension of a currently approved
information collection.)
Affected Public: Individuals or
households, State, local or tribal
government, Federal government.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
8,500.
Estimated Time per Response: Varied,
dependent upon the data collection
method used. The possible response
time to complete a questionnaire may be
15 minutes or 2 hours to participate in
an empirical study.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 5,000.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $0.
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: September 11, 2015.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015–23295 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Vessel Monitoring
System Requirements Under the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Convention
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55834-55836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23360]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-816]
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic
of Korea: 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 August 31, 2015, the United States Court of International
Trade (the Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's (Department)
Final Remand Redetermination pertaining to the 19th administrative
review of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from
the Republic of Korea (Korea).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol.
Court No. 14-00098, Slip Op. 15-99 (August 31, 2015); Final Results
of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Court No. 14-00098,
dated July 24, 2015 (Final Remand Redetermination); and Dongbu Steel
Co. v. United States, 61 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015)
(Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,\2\ as
[[Page 55835]]
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\3\ 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 19th administrative review of CORE
from Korea, and that it is amending the final results with respect to
Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu) and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(Union Steel).\4\ The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2011, through
February 14, 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\3\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
\4\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 17503 (March 28, 2014) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memo).
\5\ The period of review ends on February 14, 2012 because the
antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea was revoked effective on
this date. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832 (March 19, 2013) (CORE
Revocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore, 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-
3692.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 26, 2012, the Department initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea for the period
August 1, 2011, through July 31, 2012.\6\ On March 19, 2013, as a
result of the International Trade Commission's determination in the
third sunset review, the Department published a notice that the
antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea would be revoked, but that it
would complete any pending reviews of entries made prior to February
14, 2012, the effective date of revocation.\7\ For the Preliminary
Results, published on September 9, 2013, the Department shortened the
POR for the ongoing administrative review to reflect the effective date
of revocation of the antidumping order.\8\ In its preliminary dumping
calculations, the Department truncated the sales databases to conform
to the shortened POR. However, in conducting the sales below cost and
cost recovery tests to determine the pool of home market sales
available for the calculation of normal value, the Department used the
cost of production database submitted by Dongbu covering the original
August 1, 2011, through July 31, 2012, review period. For the Final
Results, the Department continued to use Dongbu's weighted-average cost
data for the full-year POR in its antidumping calculations.\9\ The
Department also used Dongbu's weighted-average dumping margin as the
rate for non-examined respondent Union Steel, because it was the only
rate that was not zero, de minimis, or based on total facts
available.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 77 FR
59168 (September 26, 2012).
\7\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832 (March 19, 2013);
Determinations: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Germany and Korea, 78 FR 15376 (March 11, 2013).
\8\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, 78
FR 55057 (September 9, 2013), and accompanying Preliminary Decision
Memorandum (Preliminary Results).
\9\ See Final Results, and accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 1.
\10\ See Final Results, 79 FR at 17504 & n.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Court, Dongbu and Union Steel challenged the
Department's determination to use the 12-month cost of production data
in both the cost recovery and sales below cost tests, arguing that the
language of the cost recovery test in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) requires that prices be
measured for cost recovery against the weighted-average cost of
production for the shortened POR, and that the Department accordingly
should have requested new cost data for the revised POR and
recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin.\11\ Dongbu and Union
Steel further argued that the Department's use of costs outside the POR
in the sales below cost test was unlawful because the statute requires
that the cost of production ``reasonably reflect the costs associated
with the production and sale of the merchandise, during the period of
review.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Remand Order, 61 F. Supp. 3d at 1381.
\12\ Id., at 1388.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Remand Order, the Court held that the language of the
statute ``unambiguously prohibited the Department from using cost data
for a period other than the POR to calculate the weighted average cost
of production for purposes of the cost recovery test,'' and that
``{n{time} othing in the statutory framework contradicts the cost
recovery test's plain language regarding the POR.'' \13\ The Court
rejected the Department's remaining arguments regarding the cost
recovery test provision.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id., at 1384.
\14\ Id., at 1385-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Court agreed that the Department has discretion to
include costs outside of the POR in conducting the sales below cost
test, but found the Department's explanation as to why it included
post-review period cost data inadequate, and remanded to the Department
to ``explain its decision in this case that the costs incurred after
the POR reasonably reflect the costs of the product under review.''
\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id., at 1388-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reopening the record to obtain cost of production data
reflecting the revised POR from Dongbu, issuing a draft remand
redetermination, and soliciting comments, the Department issued the
Final Remand Redetermination on July 24, 2015. In the Final Remand
Redetermination, the Department modified its dumping calculations by
comparing Dongbu's home market sales against cost data from the revised
POR to determine whether such sales were made at prices that would
provide for the recovery of costs.\16\ The Department relied on this
same cost data in administering the sales below cost test for
Dongbu.\17\ Finally, the Department assigned Dongbu's revised dumping
margin to Union Steel.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Final Remand Redetermination at 5.
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id., at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the
CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 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
sustaining the Final Remand Redetermination 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. 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 (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject
[[Page 55836]]
merchandise exported by the producers and/or exporters listed below at
the rates listed below.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is
amending the Final Results with respect to Dongbu and Union Steel,
plaintiffs in this case. The revised weighted-average dumping margins
for these producers/exporters during the period August 1, 2011, through
February 14, 2012, are as follows:
Weighted-Average Dumping Margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Producer/Exporter dumping margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu................................................ 5.38
Union Steel........................................... 5.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The Department notified CBP to discontinue the collection of cash
deposits on entries of the subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn
from warehouse, on or after February 14, 2012.\19\ Therefore, no cash
deposit requirements will be imposed in response to these amended final
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See CORE Revocation, 78 FR at 16833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 10, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-23360 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
