Final Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 63537-63539 [2015-26601]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 202 / Tuesday, October 20, 2015 / Notices
written description of the scope of the
investigation is dispositive.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Appendix 2
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Investigation
IV. Subsidies Valuation
a. Period of Investigation
b. Allocation Period
c. Attribution of Subsidies
d. Denominators
e. Loan Interest Rate Benchmarks and
Discount Rates
V. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and
Adverse Inferences
VI. Analysis of Programs
a. Programs Determined to be
Countervailable
b. Programs Determined To Be Not Used or
Not to Confer a Benefit During the POI
c. Program Determined To Be Not
Countervailable
VII. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: The Department’s Selection of
Mandatory and Voluntary Respondents
Comment 2: The Calculation of the All
Other’s Rate
Comment 3: Whether the Department
Should Allow Irving to Post Bonds Until
the Final Results of an Expedited Review
Comment 4: Whether Port Hawkesbury is
Creditworthy
Comment 5: Whether the GNS’ Hot Idle
Funding is Extinguished
Comment 6: Whether the GNS’ FIF
Funding is Extinguished
Comment 7: Whether Assistance Under the
Outreach Agreement is Countervailable
Comment 8: Whether Port Hawkesbury’s
Private Stumpage Purchases Provide an
Appropriate Benchmark for Port
Hawkesbury’s Crown Stumpage
Purchases
Comment 9: Land for MTAR
Comment 10 Whether the NSUARB is an
Authority
Comment 11: Whether the Government
Entrusted or Directed NSPI to Provide a
Financial Contribution
Comment 12: Whether to Use a Tier 1
Benchmark
Comment 13: Whether the Port
Hawkesbury LRR is based on Market
Principles
Comment 14: Whether Steam for LTAR
Provides a Countervailable Subsidy
Comment 15: Whether the Property Tax
Reduction in Richmond County Provides
a Countervailable Subsidy
Comment 16: Whether the PWCC
Indemnity Loan Program Should be
Excluded from Port Hawkesbury’s Cash
Deposit Rate
Comment 17: Whether to Apply AFA to
Resolute
Comment 18: Whether the Support for the
Forest Industry Program (Investissement
´
Quebec Loans) Provides Countervailable
Subsidies to Resolute’s SC Paper
Production
Comment 19: Whether Certain Programs
Provides Countervailable Subsidies to
Resolute’s SC Paper Production
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Oct 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
Comment 20: Whether Subsidies are
Extinguished by Changes in Ownership
VIII. Conclusion
Appendix I: Acronym and Abbreviation
Table
Appendix II: Litigation Table
Appendix III: Administrative Determinations
and Notices Table
Appendix IV: Case-Related Documents
Appendix V: Miscellaneous Table
(Regulatory, Statutory, Articles, etc.)
[FR Doc. 2015–26634 Filed 10–19–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[Court No. 12–00296]
Final Redetermination Pursuant to
Court Remand, Wheatland Tube Co. v.
United States
Summary
On August 3, 2015, the U.S. Court of
International Trade (CIT or Court)
granted the request of the Department of
Commerce (Department) for a voluntary
remand in the above-referenced
proceeding.1 The Remand Order
involves a challenge to the Department’s
final determination in a proceeding
conducted under Section 129 of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(Section 129) related to the
Department’s final affirmative
antidumping duty (AD) determination
on circular welded carbon quality steel
pipe (CWP) from the People’s Republic
of China (PRC) for the period October 1,
2006, through March 31, 2007.2
The CIT granted the Department’s
request for a voluntary remand ‘‘in light
of Commerce’s remand redetermination
in Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 12–00298,
1 See Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, Court
No. 12–00296 (August 3, 2015) (Remand Order).
2 See Implementation of Determinations Under
Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act:
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires; Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe; Laminated
Woven Sacks; and Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe
and Tube From the People’s Republic of China, 77
FR 52683 (August 30, 2012) (Implementation
Notice); See Memorandum from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Final
Determination: Section 129 Proceeding Pursuant to
the WTO Appellate Body’s Findings in WTO DS379
Regarding the Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon
Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ (July 31, 2012) (Final Determination
Memorandum); see also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality
Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 73
FR 31970 (June 5, 2008) (Final Determination).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63537
Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, April 27, 2015, ECF No. 70’’
(CVD Remand Redetermination), which
dealt with the companion CWP
countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding.3
In the CVD Remand Redetermination,
the Department found ‘‘that there is no
basis for making an adjustment to the
companion AD rates under’’ 19 U.S.C.
1677f–1(f), because no party in the
companion CVD proceeding responded
to the Department’s request for
information concerning the issue of
‘‘double remedies.’’
In light of the CVD Remand
Redetermination, we have reconsidered
our finding regarding the double
remedies adjustment afforded to
respondents in the underlying AD
proceeding, and found that there is no
basis for making an adjustment to the
AD rates under 19 U.S.C. 1677f–1(f). As
such, in the draft redetermination, we
denied the adjustment that we granted
the respondents in the Final
Determination Memorandum.
The Department offered interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
the Draft Remand.4 On September 23,
2015, Plaintiff Wheatland Tube
Company (Wheatland) and Consolidated
Plaintiff United States Steel Corporation
(U.S. Steel Corporation) submitted
comments on the Draft Remand.5 In
their letter, they stated the following:
We support the Department’s
determination to ‘‘deny { } the adjustment
that we granted respondents in the CWP AD
Section 129 determination.’’ We have no
other comments.6 (footnote omitted)
No other interested party submitted
comments.
For the reasons discussed below, our
Draft Remand remains unchanged, and
we continue to deny the adjustment that
we granted the respondents in the Final
Determination Memorandum.
Background
Section 129 Proceeding
On July 22, 2008, upon final
affirmative determinations by the
Department and the U.S. International
Trade Commission, the Department
published AD and CVD orders on CWP
from the PRC.7 The Government of the
3 See
Remand Order.
‘‘Draft Remand Redetermination, Wheatland
Tube Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12–
00296,’’ (September 18, 2015) (Draft Remand).
5 See Letter from the Domestic Interested Parties
to the Department, ‘‘Comments On The Draft
Remand Redetermination, Wheatland Tube Co. v.
United States, Court No. 12–00296’’ (September 23,
2015).
6 Id. at 1.
7 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China, 73 FR 42547 (July 22, 2008).
4 See
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
63538
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 202 / Tuesday, October 20, 2015 / Notices
People’s Republic of China (GOC)
challenged the CWP orders and three
other sets of simultaneously imposed
AD and CVD orders before the Dispute
Settlement Body of the World Trade
Organization (WTO). The WTO
Appellate Body, in March 2011, found
that the United States had acted
inconsistently with its international
obligations in several respects,
including the potential imposition of
overlapping remedies.8
The U.S. Trade Representative then
announced the United States’ intention
to comply with the WTO’s rulings and
recommendations, and requested that
the Department make a determination
‘‘not inconsistent with’’ the WTO AB
Report.9 In the CVD proceeding, the
GOC did not provide CWP-specific
industry information for cost recovery
and specific cost categories in the
proceeding, but rather provided
manufacturing-level data.
Based upon its preliminary findings
in the companion CVD proceeding using
the non-CWP specific information
mentioned above, the Department
issued a preliminary determination
memorandum on May 31, 2012, granting
a double remedies adjustment to all
respondents.10
After allowing parties to the
proceeding an opportunity to submit
factual information and comment on the
Preliminary Determination
Memorandum, the Department on July
31, 2012, issued its Final Determination
Memorandum in the Section 129
proceeding on, inter alia, the double
remedies issue.11 Based on its analysis,
the Department found that there was a
demonstration of:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
{A} subsidy-(variable) cost-price link in
the case of input price subsidies (i.e.,
subsidized inputs) for the CWP industry
during the period of investigation (POI), from
which we preliminarily estimated that 63.07
percent of the value of the subsidies that
have impacted variable costs were ‘‘passed
8 See United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping
and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from
China, 611, WT/DS379/AB/R (Mar. 11, 2011) (WTO
AB Report).
9 See Implementation Notice, 77 FR at 52684
(citing 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(2)).
10 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
‘‘Section 129 Proceeding Pursuant to the WTO
Appellate Body’s Findings in WTO DS379
Regarding the Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe (CWP)
from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Adjustments to the Antidumping
Duty Cash Deposit Rates’’ (May 31, 2012)
(Preliminary Determination Memorandum), at 7–8
and Attachment 1.
11 See Final Determination Memorandum.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Oct 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
through’’ to export prices for the CWP
industry during the POI.12
As a result, the Department issued
amended AD cash deposit rates, which
reduced the weighted-average dumping
margin for separate rate companies from
69.2 percent to 45.35 percent.13 The
PRC-wide entity dumping margin also
was reduced from 85.55 percent to 68.24
percent.14 Following consultations
prescribed by Section 129, the
Department, at the direction of the U.S.
Trade Representative, published the
Implementation Notice on August 30,
2012.
Wheatland, U.S. Steel Corporation,
and Plaintiff-Intervenors Allied Tube
and Conduit and TMK IPSCO Tubulars
(collectively, the Domestic Interested
Parties) challenged the Department’s AD
and CVD Section 129 CWP
determinations. In the litigation
concerning the CVD determination
(CVD Litigation), the Domestic
Interested Parties challenged the
Department’s decision that an
adjustment to the AD duty on U.S. CWP
imports from the PRC is warranted to
account for remedies that overlap those
imposed by the CVD order.
CVD Litigation
In November 2014, the CIT issued an
opinion and order in the CVD Litigation
remanding the CWP CVD Section 129
determination to the Department for
further consideration of its finding that
certain countervailable subsidies
reduced the average price of U.S. CWP
imports, such that the reduction
warranted a ‘‘double remedies’’
adjustment to the companion AD
rates.15 In April 2015, the Department
filed its remand redetermination in the
CVD case.16
In the CVD Remand Redetermination,
the Department found ‘‘that there is no
basis for making an adjustment to the
companion AD rates under’’ 19 U.S.C.
1677f–1(f)(1)(b).17 In the CVD remand
proceeding, the Department sent
questionnaires to the original CVD
respondents to obtain industry and
respondent specific information
necessary for its ‘‘double remedies’’
analysis.18 The Department also issued
copies of the questionnaire to the
GOC.19 Neither the CVD mandatory
12 See Preliminary Determination Memorandum
at 3; unchanged in the Final Determination
Memorandum.
13 See Implementation Notice, 77 FR at 52687.
14 Id.
15 See Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 26
F. Supp. 3d 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014).
16 See CVD Remand Redetermination.
17 Id. at 10.
18 Id. at 2.
19 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
respondents nor the GOC, however,
filed a questionnaire response,
comments, or an extension request by
the due date. Without the requested
information from the respondents, the
Department found that an adjustment
under 19 U.S.C. 1677f–1(f) was not
warranted.20
In May 2015, the CIT sustained the
Department’s CVD Remand
Redetermination and entered a final
judgment in the CVD case.21 No party
appealed the CIT’s final judgment in the
CVD case.
AD Litigation
On January 2, 2013, the CIT issued an
order staying the litigation concerning
the CWP AD Section 129 determination
(AD Litigation), ‘‘pending the final
disposition of Wheatland Tube Co. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 12–
00298, including all appeals.’’ 22
Following the final disposition of the
CVD Litigation, the CIT’s stay of the AD
Litigation lifted on July 8, 2015. On
August 3, 2015, the CIT granted the
Department’s request for voluntary
remand.23
Final Redetermination
In light of the CVD Remand
Redetermination, we have reconsidered
our finding regarding the double
remedies adjustment granted to
respondents in the CWP AD Section 129
determination. In the CVD Remand
Redetermination, we found that an
adjustment under 19 U.S.C. 1677f–1(f)
requires a demonstration of a reduction
in the average price of imports, for
which the Department, in part,
examines the links between the
countervailed subsidy programs and the
impact on the respondents’ costs.
Without the requested information
from respondents in the CVD Remand
Redetermination, the Department
determined that such a demonstration
has not been made at the CWP industryspecific level and there is no basis for
making an adjustment to the AD rates
under 19 U.S.C. 1677f–1(f). As such, for
this final redetermination, we are
denying the adjustment that we granted
respondents in the CWP AD Section 129
determination.
Accordingly, we have revised the AD
rates that we calculated in the CWP AD
Section 129 determination. The revised
AD rates are listed in the attached
Appendix, ‘‘Revised Antidumping Duty
20 Id.
at 8–9.
21 Wheatland
Tube Co. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 12–00298, slip op. 15–44 (Ct. Int’l Trade
May 7, 2015).
22 Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, Court
No. 12–00296, Order, January 2, 2013, ECF No. 32.
23 See Remand Order.
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 202 / Tuesday, October 20, 2015 / Notices
Cash Deposit Rates Pursuant to Remand
Redetermination.’’
63539
Dated: October 8, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix: Revised Antidumping Duty
Cash Deposit Rates Pursuant To
Remand Redetermination
Revised AD
cash deposit
rate
(%)
Exporter
Producer
BEIJING SAI LIN KE HARDWARE CO., LTD ...........................
XUZHOU GUANG HUAN STEEL TUBE PRODUCTS CO.,
LTD.
BENXI NORTHERN PIPES CO., LTD .......................................
DALIAN BROLLO STEEL TUBES LTD .....................................
GUANGDONG WALSALL STEEL PIPE INDUSTRIAL CO.
LTD.
HENGSHUI JINGHUA STEEL PIPE CO., LTD .........................
HULUDAO STEEL PIPE INDUSTRIAL CO ...............................
JIANGSU GUOQIANG ZINC–PLATING INDUSTRIAL CO.,
LTD.
JIANGYIN JIANYE METAL PRODUCTS CO., LTD ..................
KUNSHAN HONGYUAN MACHINERY MANUFACTURE CO.,
LTD.
KUNSHAN LETS WIN STEEL MACHINERY CO., LTD ............
QINGDAO XIANGXING STEEL PIPE CO., LTD .......................
SHANDONG XINYUANGROUP CO., LTD ................................
SHANDONG XINYUAN GROUP CO., LTD ...............................
BENXI NORTHERN PIPES CO., LTD .......................................
69.2
BAZHOU DONG SHENG HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED STEEL
PIPE CO., LTD.
BAZHOU ZHUOFA STEEL PIPE CO. LTD ...............................
TIANJIN JINGHAI COUNTY BAOLAI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY CO. LTD.
TIANJIN HEXING STEEL CO., LTD ..........................................
TIANJIN RUITONG STEEL CO., LTD .......................................
TIANJIN YAYI INDUSTRIAL CO ................................................
TANGSHAN FENGNAN DISTRICT XINLIDA STEEL PIPE
CO., LTD.
TIANJIN LIFENGYUANDA STEEL GROUP ..............................
TIANJIN LITUO STEEL PRODUCTS CO ..................................
TIANJIN XINGYUNDA STEEL PIPE CO ...................................
GUANGDONG WALSALL STEEL PIPE INDUSTRIAL CO.
LTD.
BAZHOU DONG SHENG HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED STEEL
PIPE CO., LTD.
WEIFANG EAST STEEL PIPE CO., LTD ..................................
WUXI ERIC STEEL PIPE CO., LTD ..........................................
WUXI FASTUBE INDUSTRY CO., LTD ....................................
ZHANGJIAGANG ZHONGYUAN PIPE-MAKING CO., LTD ......
................................................................................................
69.2
BENXI NORTHERN PIPES CO., LTD .......................................
DALIAN BROLLO STEEL TUBES LTD .....................................
GUANGDONG WALSALL STEEL PIPE INDUSTRIAL CO.
LTD.
HENGSHUI JINGHUA STEEL PIPE CO., LTD .........................
HULUDAO STEEL PIPE INDUSTRIAL CO ...............................
JIANGSU GUOQIANG ZINC-PLATING INDUSTRIAL CO.,
LTD.
JIANGYIN JIANYE METAL PRODUCTS CO., LTD ..................
KUNSHAN HONGYUAN MACHINERY MANUFACTURE CO.,
LTD.
KUNSHAN LETS WIN STEEL MACHINERY CO., LTD ............
QINGDAO XIANGXING STEEL PIPE CO., LTD .......................
QINGDAO YONGJIE IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD ..............
RIZHAO XINGYE IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD ....................
SHANGHAI METALS & MINERALS IMPORT & EXPORT
CORP.
SHENYANG BOYU M/E CO., LTD ............................................
SHIJIAZHUANG ZHONGQING IMP & EXP CO., LTD ..............
TIANJIN BAOLAI INT’L TRADE CO., LTD ................................
TIANJIN
TIANJIN
TIANJIN
TIANJIN
NO. 1 STEEL ROLLED CO., LTD ...............................
NO. 1 STEEL ROLLED CO., LTD ...............................
NO. 1 STEEL ROLLED CO., LTD ...............................
XINGYUDA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD ...............
TIANJIN XINGYUDA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD ...............
TIANJIN XINGYUDA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD ...............
TIANJIN XINGYUDA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD ...............
WAH CIT ENTERPRISE ............................................................
WAI MING (TIANJIN) INT’L TRADING CO., LTD .....................
WEIFANG EAST STEEL PIPE CO., LTD ..................................
WUXI ERIC STEEL PIPE CO., LTD ..........................................
WUXI FASTUBE INDUSTRY CO., LTD ....................................
ZHANGJIAGANG ZHONGYUAN PIPE-MAKING CO., LTD ......
PRC-WIDE ENTITY ....................................................................
[FR Doc. 2015–26601 Filed 10–19–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Docket No. 150923882–5882–01]
Federal Information Processing
Standard (FIPS) 186–4, Digital
Signature Standard; Request for
Comments on the NIST-Recommended
Elliptic Curves
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Oct 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
69.2
85.55
The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
requests comments on Federal
Information Processing Standard (FIPS)
186–4, Digital Signature Standard,
which has been in effect since July
2013. FIPS 186–4 specifies three
techniques for the generation and
verification of digital signatures that can
be used for the protection of data: the
Rivest-Shamir-Adleman Algorithm
(RSA), the Digital Signature Algorithm
(DSA), and the Elliptic Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), along
with a set of elliptic curves
recommended for government use. NIST
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 202 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63537-63539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26601]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[Court No. 12-00296]
Final Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Wheatland Tube
Co. v. United States
Summary
On August 3, 2015, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT or
Court) granted the request of the Department of Commerce (Department)
for a voluntary remand in the above-referenced proceeding.\1\ The
Remand Order involves a challenge to the Department's final
determination in a proceeding conducted under Section 129 of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Section 129) related to the Department's
final affirmative antidumping duty (AD) determination on circular
welded carbon quality steel pipe (CWP) from the People's Republic of
China (PRC) for the period October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, Court No. 12-00296
(August 3, 2015) (Remand Order).
\2\ See Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires; Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe; Laminated Woven
Sacks; and Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the People's
Republic of China, 77 FR 52683 (August 30, 2012) (Implementation
Notice); See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations, ``Final Determination: Section 129 Proceeding
Pursuant to the WTO Appellate Body's Findings in WTO DS379 Regarding
the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of
China,'' (July 31, 2012) (Final Determination Memorandum); see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of
China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 2008) (Final Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT granted the Department's request for a voluntary remand
``in light of Commerce's remand redetermination in Wheatland Tube Co.
v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12-00298, Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, April 27, 2015, ECF No. 70'' (CVD Remand
Redetermination), which dealt with the companion CWP countervailing
duty (CVD) proceeding.\3\ In the CVD Remand Redetermination, the
Department found ``that there is no basis for making an adjustment to
the companion AD rates under'' 19 U.S.C. 1677f-1(f), because no party
in the companion CVD proceeding responded to the Department's request
for information concerning the issue of ``double remedies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Remand Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the CVD Remand Redetermination, we have reconsidered
our finding regarding the double remedies adjustment afforded to
respondents in the underlying AD proceeding, and found that there is no
basis for making an adjustment to the AD rates under 19 U.S.C. 1677f-
1(f). As such, in the draft redetermination, we denied the adjustment
that we granted the respondents in the Final Determination Memorandum.
The Department offered interested parties an opportunity to comment
on the Draft Remand.\4\ On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff Wheatland Tube
Company (Wheatland) and Consolidated Plaintiff United States Steel
Corporation (U.S. Steel Corporation) submitted comments on the Draft
Remand.\5\ In their letter, they stated the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See ``Draft Remand Redetermination, Wheatland Tube Co. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 12-00296,'' (September 18, 2015)
(Draft Remand).
\5\ See Letter from the Domestic Interested Parties to the
Department, ``Comments On The Draft Remand Redetermination,
Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, Court No. 12-00296'' (September
23, 2015).
We support the Department's determination to ``deny { {time}
the adjustment that we granted respondents in the CWP AD Section 129
determination.'' We have no other comments.\6\ (footnote omitted)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. at 1.
No other interested party submitted comments.
For the reasons discussed below, our Draft Remand remains
unchanged, and we continue to deny the adjustment that we granted the
respondents in the Final Determination Memorandum.
Background
Section 129 Proceeding
On July 22, 2008, upon final affirmative determinations by the
Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Department
published AD and CVD orders on CWP from the PRC.\7\ The Government of
the
[[Page 63538]]
People's Republic of China (GOC) challenged the CWP orders and three
other sets of simultaneously imposed AD and CVD orders before the
Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO
Appellate Body, in March 2011, found that the United States had acted
inconsistently with its international obligations in several respects,
including the potential imposition of overlapping remedies.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon
Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 42547
(July 22, 2008).
\8\ See United States--Definitive Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China, 611, WT/DS379/
AB/R (Mar. 11, 2011) (WTO AB Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Trade Representative then announced the United States'
intention to comply with the WTO's rulings and recommendations, and
requested that the Department make a determination ``not inconsistent
with'' the WTO AB Report.\9\ In the CVD proceeding, the GOC did not
provide CWP-specific industry information for cost recovery and
specific cost categories in the proceeding, but rather provided
manufacturing-level data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Implementation Notice, 77 FR at 52684 (citing 19 U.S.C.
3538(b)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon its preliminary findings in the companion CVD proceeding
using the non-CWP specific information mentioned above, the Department
issued a preliminary determination memorandum on May 31, 2012, granting
a double remedies adjustment to all respondents.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
``Section 129 Proceeding Pursuant to the WTO Appellate Body's
Findings in WTO DS379 Regarding the Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe (CWP) from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Adjustments to the
Antidumping Duty Cash Deposit Rates'' (May 31, 2012) (Preliminary
Determination Memorandum), at 7-8 and Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After allowing parties to the proceeding an opportunity to submit
factual information and comment on the Preliminary Determination
Memorandum, the Department on July 31, 2012, issued its Final
Determination Memorandum in the Section 129 proceeding on, inter alia,
the double remedies issue.\11\ Based on its analysis, the Department
found that there was a demonstration of:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Final Determination Memorandum.
{A{time} subsidy-(variable) cost-price link in the case of
input price subsidies (i.e., subsidized inputs) for the CWP industry
during the period of investigation (POI), from which we
preliminarily estimated that 63.07 percent of the value of the
subsidies that have impacted variable costs were ``passed through''
to export prices for the CWP industry during the POI.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Preliminary Determination Memorandum at 3; unchanged in
the Final Determination Memorandum.
As a result, the Department issued amended AD cash deposit rates,
which reduced the weighted-average dumping margin for separate rate
companies from 69.2 percent to 45.35 percent.\13\ The PRC-wide entity
dumping margin also was reduced from 85.55 percent to 68.24
percent.\14\ Following consultations prescribed by Section 129, the
Department, at the direction of the U.S. Trade Representative,
published the Implementation Notice on August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Implementation Notice, 77 FR at 52687.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheatland, U.S. Steel Corporation, and Plaintiff-Intervenors Allied
Tube and Conduit and TMK IPSCO Tubulars (collectively, the Domestic
Interested Parties) challenged the Department's AD and CVD Section 129
CWP determinations. In the litigation concerning the CVD determination
(CVD Litigation), the Domestic Interested Parties challenged the
Department's decision that an adjustment to the AD duty on U.S. CWP
imports from the PRC is warranted to account for remedies that overlap
those imposed by the CVD order.
CVD Litigation
In November 2014, the CIT issued an opinion and order in the CVD
Litigation remanding the CWP CVD Section 129 determination to the
Department for further consideration of its finding that certain
countervailable subsidies reduced the average price of U.S. CWP
imports, such that the reduction warranted a ``double remedies''
adjustment to the companion AD rates.\15\ In April 2015, the Department
filed its remand redetermination in the CVD case.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 26 F. Supp. 3d
1372 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014).
\16\ See CVD Remand Redetermination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the CVD Remand Redetermination, the Department found ``that
there is no basis for making an adjustment to the companion AD rates
under'' 19 U.S.C. 1677f-1(f)(1)(b).\17\ In the CVD remand proceeding,
the Department sent questionnaires to the original CVD respondents to
obtain industry and respondent specific information necessary for its
``double remedies'' analysis.\18\ The Department also issued copies of
the questionnaire to the GOC.\19\ Neither the CVD mandatory respondents
nor the GOC, however, filed a questionnaire response, comments, or an
extension request by the due date. Without the requested information
from the respondents, the Department found that an adjustment under 19
U.S.C. 1677f-1(f) was not warranted.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id. at 10.
\18\ Id. at 2.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2015, the CIT sustained the Department's CVD Remand
Redetermination and entered a final judgment in the CVD case.\21\ No
party appealed the CIT's final judgment in the CVD case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12-
00298, slip op. 15-44 (Ct. Int'l Trade May 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AD Litigation
On January 2, 2013, the CIT issued an order staying the litigation
concerning the CWP AD Section 129 determination (AD Litigation),
``pending the final disposition of Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 12-00298, including all appeals.'' \22\ Following the
final disposition of the CVD Litigation, the CIT's stay of the AD
Litigation lifted on July 8, 2015. On August 3, 2015, the CIT granted
the Department's request for voluntary remand.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, Court No. 12-00296,
Order, January 2, 2013, ECF No. 32.
\23\ See Remand Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Redetermination
In light of the CVD Remand Redetermination, we have reconsidered
our finding regarding the double remedies adjustment granted to
respondents in the CWP AD Section 129 determination. In the CVD Remand
Redetermination, we found that an adjustment under 19 U.S.C. 1677f-1(f)
requires a demonstration of a reduction in the average price of
imports, for which the Department, in part, examines the links between
the countervailed subsidy programs and the impact on the respondents'
costs.
Without the requested information from respondents in the CVD
Remand Redetermination, the Department determined that such a
demonstration has not been made at the CWP industry-specific level and
there is no basis for making an adjustment to the AD rates under 19
U.S.C. 1677f-1(f). As such, for this final redetermination, we are
denying the adjustment that we granted respondents in the CWP AD
Section 129 determination.
Accordingly, we have revised the AD rates that we calculated in the
CWP AD Section 129 determination. The revised AD rates are listed in
the attached Appendix, ``Revised Antidumping Duty
[[Page 63539]]
Cash Deposit Rates Pursuant to Remand Redetermination.''
Dated: October 8, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix: Revised Antidumping Duty Cash Deposit Rates Pursuant To
Remand Redetermination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised AD
Exporter Producer cash deposit
rate (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEIJING SAI LIN KE HARDWARE CO., XUZHOU GUANG HUAN 69.2
LTD. STEEL TUBE PRODUCTS
CO., LTD.
BENXI NORTHERN PIPES CO., LTD..... BENXI NORTHERN PIPES 69.2
CO., LTD.
DALIAN BROLLO STEEL TUBES LTD..... DALIAN BROLLO STEEL 69.2
TUBES LTD.
GUANGDONG WALSALL STEEL PIPE GUANGDONG WALSALL 69.2
INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. STEEL PIPE
INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.
HENGSHUI JINGHUA STEEL PIPE CO., HENGSHUI JINGHUA 69.2
LTD. STEEL PIPE CO., LTD.
HULUDAO STEEL PIPE INDUSTRIAL CO.. HULUDAO STEEL PIPE 69.2
INDUSTRIAL CO.
JIANGSU GUOQIANG ZINC-PLATING JIANGSU GUOQIANG 69.2
INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. ZINC-PLATING
INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.
JIANGYIN JIANYE METAL PRODUCTS JIANGYIN JIANYE 69.2
CO., LTD. METAL PRODUCTS CO.,
LTD.
KUNSHAN HONGYUAN MACHINERY KUNSHAN HONGYUAN 69.2
MANUFACTURE CO., LTD. MACHINERY
MANUFACTURE CO.,
LTD.
KUNSHAN LETS WIN STEEL MACHINERY KUNSHAN LETS WIN 69.2
CO., LTD. STEEL MACHINERY
CO., LTD.
QINGDAO XIANGXING STEEL PIPE CO., QINGDAO XIANGXING 69.2
LTD. STEEL PIPE CO., LTD.
QINGDAO YONGJIE IMPORT & EXPORT SHANDONG 69.2
CO., LTD. XINYUANGROUP CO.,
LTD.
RIZHAO XINGYE IMPORT & EXPORT CO., SHANDONG XINYUAN 69.2
LTD. GROUP CO., LTD.
SHANGHAI METALS & MINERALS IMPORT BENXI NORTHERN PIPES 69.2
& EXPORT CORP. CO., LTD.
SHENYANG BOYU M/E CO., LTD........ BAZHOU DONG SHENG 69.2
HOT-DIPPED
GALVANIZED STEEL
PIPE CO., LTD.
SHIJIAZHUANG ZHONGQING IMP & EXP BAZHOU ZHUOFA STEEL 69.2
CO., LTD. PIPE CO. LTD.
TIANJIN BAOLAI INT'L TRADE CO., TIANJIN JINGHAI 69.2
LTD. COUNTY BAOLAI
BUSINESS AND
INDUSTRY CO. LTD.
TIANJIN NO. 1 STEEL ROLLED CO., TIANJIN HEXING STEEL 69.2
LTD. CO., LTD.
TIANJIN NO. 1 STEEL ROLLED CO., TIANJIN RUITONG 69.2
LTD. STEEL CO., LTD.
TIANJIN NO. 1 STEEL ROLLED CO., TIANJIN YAYI 69.2
LTD. INDUSTRIAL CO.
TIANJIN XINGYUDA IMPORT & EXPORT TANGSHAN FENGNAN 69.2
CO., LTD. DISTRICT XINLIDA
STEEL PIPE CO., LTD.
TIANJIN XINGYUDA IMPORT & EXPORT TIANJIN LIFENGYUANDA 69.2
CO., LTD. STEEL GROUP.
TIANJIN XINGYUDA IMPORT & EXPORT TIANJIN LITUO STEEL 69.2
CO., LTD. PRODUCTS CO.
TIANJIN XINGYUDA IMPORT & EXPORT TIANJIN XINGYUNDA 69.2
CO., LTD. STEEL PIPE CO.
WAH CIT ENTERPRISE................ GUANGDONG WALSALL 69.2
STEEL PIPE
INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.
WAI MING (TIANJIN) INT'L TRADING BAZHOU DONG SHENG 69.2
CO., LTD. HOT-DIPPED
GALVANIZED STEEL
PIPE CO., LTD.
WEIFANG EAST STEEL PIPE CO., LTD.. WEIFANG EAST STEEL 69.2
PIPE CO., LTD.
WUXI ERIC STEEL PIPE CO., LTD..... WUXI ERIC STEEL PIPE 69.2
CO., LTD.
WUXI FASTUBE INDUSTRY CO., LTD.... WUXI FASTUBE 69.2
INDUSTRY CO., LTD.
ZHANGJIAGANG ZHONGYUAN PIPE-MAKING ZHANGJIAGANG 69.2
CO., LTD. ZHONGYUAN PIPE-
MAKING CO., LTD.
PRC-WIDE ENTITY................... .................... 85.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-26601 Filed 10-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
