Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Review and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2843-2844 [2016-00917]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices date of last entry. (NC1–64–77–10 item 19).’’ http://www.archives.gov/recordsmgmt/grs/grs01.html. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: CAPT Priscilla J. Powers, Director, Health Services, 2002 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: In accordance with the Department of Commerce regulations implementing the Privacy Act, at Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 4, subpart B-Privacy Act, individuals interested in determining if the system contains their name should direct their Privacy Act request to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Reference Facility, OFA56, 1315 East West Highway (SSMC3), Room 10730, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Same as Notification procedures above. Manufacturing Inc., within FTZ 265, in Conroe, Texas. The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 54520, September 10, 2015). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board’s regulations, including Section 400.14, and further subject to a restriction requiring that foreign status textilebased cotton transport straps (classified within HTSUS Subheading 5806.31) be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). Sawblades), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying the public that the Court’s final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the AR2 Final Results 2 and that the Department is amending the AR2 Final Results with respect to the ATM Single Entity 3 and the PRC-wide entity. DATES: Effective Date: October 31, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun or Minoo Hatten, AD/ CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–5760 or (202) 482– 1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: January 12, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. Background [FR Doc. 2016–00918 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: Same as Notification procedures above. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Information that may be entered into the NHSQ and TSD will come from the following sources: 1. The individual involved in the medical record. 2. The authorized medical reviewer. 3. Other documentation submitted by medical providers of the individual. 4. Medical events that occur while on OMAO vessels. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. Dated: January 12, 2016. Michael J. Toland, Department of Commerce, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer. [FR Doc. 2016–00834 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–12–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES [B–57–2015] Correction Notice; Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Zone 265; Bauer Manufacturing Inc.; (Stationary Oil/Gas Drilling Rigs); Conroe, Texas On August 19, 2015, the City of Conroe, Texas, grantee of FTZ 265, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Bauer VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 2843 [A–570–900] Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Review and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 21, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (Court) sustained our final remand redetermination pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China covering the period November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011.1 Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond AGENCY: 1 See Final Remand Redetermination pursuant to Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00241, slip op. 14–112 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 23, 2014), dated May 18, 2015, and available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ remands/14-112.pdf (AR2 Remand), aff’d, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00241, slip op. 15–116 (Ct. Int’l Trade Oct. 21, 2015). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 On June 17, 2013, as amended on July 18, 2013, the Department published the AR2 Final Results. The Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition (DSMC) challenged certain aspects of the Department’s AR2 Final Results. On September 23, 2014, the Court remanded the AR2 Final Results to the Department to: (1) Reconsider the ATM Single Entity’s separate rate status; (2) explain where in the statute or other authority the Department finds the nonministerial discretion not to determine if there is a pattern of differing export price or constructed export price for the purposes of using an alternate comparison methodology, regardless of whether an allegation is raised to that effect; and (3) explain how the methodology for valuing Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd.’s (Weihai) steel cores is consistent with the first review, why Weihai’s NME experience better reflects Weihai’s experience of purchasing cores even though it is located in an NME country, and provide a full explanation of its 2 See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010– 2011, 78 FR 36166 (June 17, 2013), as amended in Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010– 2011, 78 FR 42930 (July 18, 2013) (collectively, AR2 Final Results). 3 The ATM Single Entity includes Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd., Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co., HXF Saw Co., Ltd., AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd., and Cliff International Ltd. See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009–2010, 78 FR 11143, 11144–45 n.9 (February 15, 2013), and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 2010–2011, 77 FR 73417, 73418 (December 10, 2012), unchanged in AR2 Final Results. E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 2844 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices chosen methodology.4 On remand, the Department (1) denied the ATM Single Entity a separate rate and revised the PRC-wide rate; (2) explained that the Department’s practice is to require targeted dumping allegations before the preliminary results and, because DSMC filed the targeted dumping allegation after the preliminary results, the targeted dumping allegation in this review was untimely; and (3) explained the Department’s methodology for valuing Weihai’s steel cores.5 On October 21, 2015, the Court upheld our final remand redetermination for this review in its entirety.6 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The Court’s final judgment affirming the final remand redetermination constitutes the Court’s final decision which is not in harmony with the AR2 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 a final and conclusive court decision. Amended Final Results of Review Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the AR2 Final Results with respect to the PRC-wide entity, which includes the ATM Single Entity, as follows: Exporter asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES PRC-Wide Entity (which includes the ATM Single Entity) .......................................... Weightedaverage dumping margin (percent) 82.05 In the event the Court’s ruling is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject 4 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00241, slip op. 14–112 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 23, 2014). 5 See AR2 Remand. 6 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00241, slip op. 15–116 (Ct. Int’l Trade Oct. 21, 2015). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 merchandise based on the revised rate the Department determined and listed above. Cash Deposit Requirements Since the AR2 Remand, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity, which includes the ATM Single Entity.7 Therefore, the cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results. Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 12, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying the public that the Court’s final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the AR1 Final Results 2 and that the Department is amending the AR1 Final Results with respect to the ATM Single Entity 3 and the PRC-wide entity. DATES: Effective Date: October 3, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun or Minoo Hatten, AD/ CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–5760 or (202) 482– 1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 2016–00917 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am] Background BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P On February 15, 2013, the Department published the AR1 Final Results. The Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition challenged the Department’s decisions to grant the ATM Single Entity a separate rate and to not collapse the state-owned enterprise, China Iron & Steel Research Institute, within the ATM Single Entity.4 The Department requested a voluntary remand to reconsider the separate rate eligibility for the ATM Single Entity in this review and the Court granted the Department’s request.5 On remand, the Department determined that the ATM Single Entity was ineligible for a separate rate and also revised the PRC-wide rate.6 On September 23, 2015, the Court entered judgment sustaining the final remand redetermination for this review in its entirety.7 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–900] Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Review and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 23, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (Court) sustained our final remand redetermination pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China covering the period January 23, 2009, through October 31, 2010.1 Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. AGENCY: 7 See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012– 2013, 80 FR 32344 (June 8, 2015). 1 See Final Results of Redetermination pursuant to Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00078, slip op. 14–50 (Ct. Int’l Trade April 29, 2014), dated April 10, 2015, and available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ remands/14–50.pdf (AR1 Remand), aff’d, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00078, slip op. 15–105 (Ct. Int’l Trade September 23, 2015). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of 2 See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009– 2010, 78 FR 11143 (February 15, 2013) (AR1 Final Results). 3 The ATM Single Entity includes Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd., Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co., HXF Saw Co., Ltd., AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd., and Cliff International Ltd. See AR1 Final Results, 78 FR at 11144–45 n.9. 4 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00078, slip op. 14–50 (Ct. Int’l Trade April 29, 2014). 5 Id. 6 See AR1 Remand. 7 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00078, slip op. 15–105 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 23, 2015). E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2843-2844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00917]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-900]


Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results 
of Review and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 21, 2015, the United States Court of International 
Trade (Court) sustained our final remand redetermination pertaining to 
the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond 
sawblades and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China 
covering the period November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011.\1\ 
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. 
Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond 
Sawblades), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying 
the public that the Court's final judgment in this case is not in 
harmony with the AR2 Final Results \2\ and that the Department is 
amending the AR2 Final Results with respect to the ATM Single Entity 
\3\ and the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Remand Redetermination pursuant to Diamond 
Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13-
00241, slip op. 14-112 (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 23, 2014), dated May 
18, 2015, and available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-112.pdf (AR2 Remand), aff'd, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' 
Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13-00241, slip op. 15-116 (Ct. 
Int'l Trade Oct. 21, 2015).
    \2\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2010-2011, 78 FR 36166 (June 17, 2013), as amended in 
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2010-2011, 78 FR 42930 (July 18, 2013) (collectively, AR2 
Final Results).
    \3\ The ATM Single Entity includes Advanced Technology & 
Materials Co., Ltd., Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co., HXF Saw 
Co., Ltd., AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd., and Cliff 
International Ltd. See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2009-2010, 78 FR 11143, 11144-45 n.9 
(February 15, 2013), and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: 2010-2011, 77 FR 73417, 73418 (December 
10, 2012), unchanged in AR2 Final Results.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: October 31, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5760 
or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On June 17, 2013, as amended on July 18, 2013, the Department 
published the AR2 Final Results. The Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' 
Coalition (DSMC) challenged certain aspects of the Department's AR2 
Final Results. On September 23, 2014, the Court remanded the AR2 Final 
Results to the Department to: (1) Reconsider the ATM Single Entity's 
separate rate status; (2) explain where in the statute or other 
authority the Department finds the non-ministerial discretion not to 
determine if there is a pattern of differing export price or 
constructed export price for the purposes of using an alternate 
comparison methodology, regardless of whether an allegation is raised 
to that effect; and (3) explain how the methodology for valuing Weihai 
Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd.'s (Weihai) steel cores is 
consistent with the first review, why Weihai's NME experience better 
reflects Weihai's experience of purchasing cores even though it is 
located in an NME country, and provide a full explanation of its

[[Page 2844]]

chosen methodology.\4\ On remand, the Department (1) denied the ATM 
Single Entity a separate rate and revised the PRC-wide rate; (2) 
explained that the Department's practice is to require targeted dumping 
allegations before the preliminary results and, because DSMC filed the 
targeted dumping allegation after the preliminary results, the targeted 
dumping allegation in this review was untimely; and (3) explained the 
Department's methodology for valuing Weihai's steel cores.\5\ On 
October 21, 2015, the Court upheld our final remand redetermination for 
this review in its entirety.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, Court No. 13-00241, slip op. 14-112 (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 
23, 2014).
    \5\ See AR2 Remand.
    \6\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United 
States, Court No. 13-00241, slip op. 15-116 (Ct. Int'l Trade Oct. 
21, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the 
CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court 
decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination and 
must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court 
decision. The Court's final judgment affirming the final remand 
redetermination constitutes the Court's final decision which is not in 
harmony with the AR2 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 a final and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Results of Review

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is 
amending the AR2 Final Results with respect to the PRC-wide entity, 
which includes the ATM Single Entity, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                         Exporter                              dumping
                                                               margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity (which includes the ATM Single Entity)....        82.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event the Court's ruling is upheld by a final and conclusive 
court decision, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries 
of subject merchandise based on the revised rate the Department 
determined and listed above.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Since the AR2 Remand, the Department has established a new cash 
deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity, which includes the ATM Single 
Entity.\7\ Therefore, the cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity 
does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 32344 (June 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 12, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-00917 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P