Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results Pursuant to Court Decision, 223-224 [2015-33164]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices
Thai Union Group is the successor-ininterest to Thai Union Frozen. We
received no comments or requests for a
public hearing from interested parties
within the time period set forth in the
Initiation and Preliminary Results.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order
is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.3
The product is currently classified
under the following Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
item numbers: 0306.17.0003,
0306.17.0006, 0306.17.0009,
0306.17.0012, 0306.17.0015,
0306.17.0018, 0306.17.0021,
0306.17.0024, 0306.17.0027,
0306.17.0040, 1605.21.1030, and
1605.29.1010. Although the HTSUS
numbers are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
product description remains dispositive.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review
For the reasons stated in the Initiation
and Preliminary Results, and because
we received no comments from
interested parties to the contrary, the
Department continues to find that Thai
Union Group is the successor-in-interest
to Thai Union Frozen. As a result of this
determination, we find that Thai Union
Group should receive the cash deposit
rate previously assigned to Thai Union
Frozen in the most recently completed
review of the antidumping duty order
on shrimp from Thailand.4
Consequently, the Department will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to suspend liquidation of all
shipments of subject merchandise
produced or exported by Thai Union
Group and entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date of this notice in the
Federal Register at 1.10 percent, which
is the current antidumping duty cashdeposit rate for the Thai Union group of
companies, of which Thai Union Frozen
(and now Thai Union Group) is a part.5 6
3 For a complete description of the scope of the
order, see Initiation and Preliminary Results.
4 See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Circular
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from
Mexico, 74 FR 41681, 41682 (August 18, 2009).
5 This group now consists of Thai Union Group,
Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd., Pakfood Public
Company Limited, Okeanos Co. Ltd., Okeanos Food
Co., Ltd, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd.,
Chaophraya Cold Storage Co. Ltd., and Takzin
Samut Co. Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘Thai Union’’).
6 Thai Union Frozen received a 1.10 percent
dumping margin as part of Thai Union in the 2012–
2013 administrative review of the AD order on
shrimp from Thailand. See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final
Determination of No Shipments, and Partial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:43 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
This cash deposit requirement shall
remain in effect until further notice.
We are issuing this determination and
publishing these final results and notice
in accordance with sections 751(b)(1)
and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216
and 351.221(c)(3).
Dated: December 24, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–33161 Filed 1–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–968]
223
Consistent with the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,4 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,5 the
Department is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in
harmony with the Department’s Final
Results and is amending its Final
Results with respect to Kam Kiu.
DATES: Effective Date: December 24,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–
482–4793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Aluminum Extrusions From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of
Amended Final Results Pursuant to
Court Decision
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 14, 2015, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or the Court) sustained the
Department of Commerce’s
(Department’s) results of
redetermination,1 which recalculated
the subsidy rate for Tai Shan City Kam
Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co. Ltd. (Kam
Kiu) in the first administrative review of
the countervailing duty (CVD) order on
aluminum extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China,2 pursuant to the
Court’s remand order in Kam Kiu.3
AGENCY:
Rescission of Review; 2012–2013, 79 FR 51306
(August 28, 2014) (corrected by Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Notice of
Correction to the Final Results of the 2012–2013
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR
62099 (October 16, 2014)). We note that Thai Union
Frozen is also a respondent in the current 2014–
2015 administrative review of this antidumping
duty order. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR
16634 (March 30, 2015). Because we determined
that Thai Union Group is the successor-in-interest
to Thai Union Frozen, we will assign Thai Union
Group an updated cash deposit rate based on the
final results of that administrative review.
1 See Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium
Extrusion Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 14–
00016; Slip Op. 15–138 (CIT December 14, 2015)
(Kam Kiu II).
2 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review; 2010 and 2011, 79 FR
106 (January 2, 2014) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
(Final Results Decision Memorandum).
3 See Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium
Extrusion Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 14–
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In the Final Results, the Department
determined that Kam Kiu failed to
respond to its request for information
regarding the company’s quantity and
value of imports of subject merchandise
to the United States during the review
period.6 The Department therefore
found Kam Kiu to be uncooperative and
determined that the application of facts
available with an adverse inference was
appropriate pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A) and (C) and section 776(b)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act).7 The Department assigned to
Kam Kiu a rate of 121.22 percent. This
rate was based on the application of
total adverse facts available (AFA)
which the Department determined was
corroborated to the extent practicable in
accordance with section 776(c) of the
Act.8
In Kam Kiu, the Court held that the
Department must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate the AFA rate
assigned to Kam Kiu by either
attempting to corroborate Kam Kiu’s
ability to benefit simultaneously from
the location-specific subsidy programs
included in the AFA rate, or adjusting
its methodology as applied to Kam Kiu
and corroborate its findings under the
new methodology.9 The Court found
00016; Slip Op. 15–21 (CIT March 20, 2015) (Kam
Kiu).
4 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
5 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
6 This first administrative review covered the
period September 7, 2010, through December 31,
2011.
7 See Final Results Decision Memorandum at
‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse
Inferences: Application of Total AFA to NonCooperative Companies’’ and Comment 23.
8 Id.
9 See Kam Kiu, Slip Op. at 18–20.
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
224
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Notices
that the Department did not explain
how the final rate of 121.22 percent was
related to Kam Kiu, and that such a rate
appeared punitive in light of the lower
rates assigned to the mandatory
respondents which were partially based
on AFA.10 The Court further held that
the Department failed to corroborate its
finding that Kam Kiu could have
benefited from the ‘‘Export Rebate for
Mechanic, Electronic, and High-Tech
Products’’ program, and evidence that
the mandatory respondents in the
review did not use the program
detracted from the Department’s
finding.11
On remand, the Court instructed the
Department to reconsider its
corroboration methodology with regard
to location-specific subsidy programs
included in Kam Kiu’s rate and the
‘‘Export Rebate for Mechanic,
Electronic, and High-Tech Products’’
program also included in Kam Kiu’s
rate, as well as to explain how the final
AFA rate relates to Kam Kiu.12
In its final results of redetermination
pursuant to Kam Kiu,13 the Department
demonstrated that the AFA rate applied
to Kam Kiu in the Final Results was
corroborated to the extent practicable
and was relevant to Kam Kiu. However,
to comply with the Court’s remand
order, under protest, the Department
adjusted Kam Kiu’s AFA rate to remove
all location-specific subsidy programs
aside from programs that Kam Kiu could
have used based on its mailing address.
The Department further explained its
corroboration of Kam Kiu’s ability to use
the ‘‘Export Rebate for Mechanic,
Electronic, and High-Tech Products’’
program to the extent practicable, and
demonstrated that the revised AFA rate
of 79.80 percent was relevant to Kam
Kiu.
On December 14, 2015, the Court
sustained the Department’s final results
of redetermination pursuant to
remand.14
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken 15 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the
CAFC has 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
10 Id.,
at 22–23.
11 Id., at 23.
12 Id.
13 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand—Tai Shan City Kam Kiu
Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. v. United States,
Court No. 14–00016; Slip Op. 15–21 (CIT 2015),
signed August 13, 2015.
14 See Kam Kiu II.
15 See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:43 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The
Court’s opinion in Kam Kiu II, issued on
December 14, 2015, sustaining the
Department’s final results of
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
requirements 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.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to the Final
Results, the Department amends its
Final Results. The Department finds that
the following revised net subsidy rate
exists:
Company
Subsidy rate
Tai Shan City Kam
Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co. Ltd.
79.80 percent ad valorem
Dated: December 29, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–33164 Filed 1–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
16 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review; 2012, 79 FR 78788
(December 31, 2014).
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
National Conference on Weights and
Measures 101st Interim Meeting
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The 101st Interim Meeting of
the National Conference on Weights and
Measures (NCWM) will be held in San
Diego, California, from Sunday, January
10, 2016, through Wednesday, January
13, 2016. This notice contains
information about significant items on
the NCWM Committee agendas but does
not include all agenda items. As a
result, the items are not consecutively
numbered.
SUMMARY:
The meeting will be held on
Sunday, January 10, 2016, through
Tuesday, January 12, 2016, from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific time, and on
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 from 9:00
a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Pacific time. The
meeting schedule is available at
www.ncwm.net.
DATES:
This meeting will be held at
the Westin San Diego Gaslamp Quarter,
910 Broadway Circle, San Diego,
California 92101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carol Hockert, Chief, NIST, Office of
Weights and Measures, 100 Bureau
Drive, Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD
20899–2600. You may also contact Ms.
Hockert at (301) 975–5507 or by email
at carol.hockert@nist.gov. The meeting
is open to the public, but a paid
registration is required. Please see
NCWM Web site (www.ncwm.net) to
view the meeting agendas, registration
forms, and hotel reservation
information.
ADDRESSES:
Since the Final Results, the
Department established a new cash
deposit rate for Kam Kiu.16 Therefore,
the cash deposit rate for Kam Kiu does
not need to be updated as a result of
these amended final results. In the event
that the Court’s ruling is not appealed,
or if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the
Department will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to liquidate
entries of subject merchandise that were
exported by Kam Kiu, and which were
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption during the period
September 7, 2010, through December
31, 2011, at the revised rate of 79.80
percent ad valorem.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Sfmt 4703
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Publication of this notice on the
NCWM’s behalf is undertaken as a
public service; NIST does not endorse,
approve, or recommend any of the
proposals or other information
contained in this notice or in the
publications of the NCWM.
The NCWM is an organization of
weights and measures officials of the
states, counties, and cities of the United
States, federal agencies, and
representatives from the private sector.
These meetings bring together
government officials and representatives
of business, industry, trade associations,
and consumer organizations on subjects
related to the field of weights and
measures technology, administration,
and enforcement. NIST participates to
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 223-224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33164]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-968]
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results Pursuant
to Court Decision
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 14, 2015, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or the Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's
(Department's) results of redetermination,\1\ which recalculated the
subsidy rate for Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co. Ltd.
(Kam Kiu) in the first administrative review of the countervailing duty
(CVD) order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of
China,\2\ pursuant to the Court's remand order in Kam Kiu.\3\
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,\4\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\5\ the Department is notifying the public that the final
judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's Final
Results and is amending its Final Results with respect to Kam Kiu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Court No. 14-00016; Slip Op. 15-138 (CIT December 14,
2015) (Kam Kiu II).
\2\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2010 and
2011, 79 FR 106 (January 2, 2014) (Final Results), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results Decision Memorandum).
\3\ See Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Court No. 14-00016; Slip Op. 15-21 (CIT March 20,
2015) (Kam Kiu).
\4\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\5\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 24, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: 202-482-4793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the Final Results, the Department determined that Kam Kiu failed
to respond to its request for information regarding the company's
quantity and value of imports of subject merchandise to the United
States during the review period.\6\ The Department therefore found Kam
Kiu to be uncooperative and determined that the application of facts
available with an adverse inference was appropriate pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) and section 776(b) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).\7\ The Department assigned to Kam Kiu a
rate of 121.22 percent. This rate was based on the application of total
adverse facts available (AFA) which the Department determined was
corroborated to the extent practicable in accordance with section
776(c) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This first administrative review covered the period
September 7, 2010, through December 31, 2011.
\7\ See Final Results Decision Memorandum at ``Use of Facts
Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences: Application of Total AFA
to Non-Cooperative Companies'' and Comment 23.
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Kam Kiu, the Court held that the Department must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate the AFA rate assigned to Kam Kiu by either
attempting to corroborate Kam Kiu's ability to benefit simultaneously
from the location-specific subsidy programs included in the AFA rate,
or adjusting its methodology as applied to Kam Kiu and corroborate its
findings under the new methodology.\9\ The Court found
[[Page 224]]
that the Department did not explain how the final rate of 121.22
percent was related to Kam Kiu, and that such a rate appeared punitive
in light of the lower rates assigned to the mandatory respondents which
were partially based on AFA.\10\ The Court further held that the
Department failed to corroborate its finding that Kam Kiu could have
benefited from the ``Export Rebate for Mechanic, Electronic, and High-
Tech Products'' program, and evidence that the mandatory respondents in
the review did not use the program detracted from the Department's
finding.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Kam Kiu, Slip Op. at 18-20.
\10\ Id., at 22-23.
\11\ Id., at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On remand, the Court instructed the Department to reconsider its
corroboration methodology with regard to location-specific subsidy
programs included in Kam Kiu's rate and the ``Export Rebate for
Mechanic, Electronic, and High-Tech Products'' program also included in
Kam Kiu's rate, as well as to explain how the final AFA rate relates to
Kam Kiu.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final results of redetermination pursuant to Kam Kiu,\13\
the Department demonstrated that the AFA rate applied to Kam Kiu in the
Final Results was corroborated to the extent practicable and was
relevant to Kam Kiu. However, to comply with the Court's remand order,
under protest, the Department adjusted Kam Kiu's AFA rate to remove all
location-specific subsidy programs aside from programs that Kam Kiu
could have used based on its mailing address. The Department further
explained its corroboration of Kam Kiu's ability to use the ``Export
Rebate for Mechanic, Electronic, and High-Tech Products'' program to
the extent practicable, and demonstrated that the revised AFA rate of
79.80 percent was relevant to Kam Kiu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand--Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Court No. 14-00016; Slip Op. 15-21 (CIT 2015), signed
August 13, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 14, 2015, the Court sustained the Department's final
results of redetermination pursuant to remand.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Kam Kiu II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken \15\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
the CAFC has 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 opinion
in Kam Kiu II, issued on December 14, 2015, sustaining the Department's
final results of 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 requirements 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the
Final Results, the Department amends its Final Results. The Department
finds that the following revised net subsidy rate exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion 79.80 percent ad valorem
Co. Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Final Results, the Department established a new cash
deposit rate for Kam Kiu.\16\ Therefore, the cash deposit rate for Kam
Kiu does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final
results. In the event that the Court's ruling is not appealed, or if
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to liquidate entries of subject merchandise that
were exported by Kam Kiu, and which were entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption during the period September 7, 2010, through
December 31, 2011, at the revised rate of 79.80 percent ad valorem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review;
2012, 79 FR 78788 (December 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 29, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-33164 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
