Final Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 63537-63539 [2015-26601]

Download as PDF 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