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, 2844-2845 [2016-00923]

Download as PDF 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 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices 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 AR1 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 AR1 Final Results with respect to the PRC-wide entity, which includes the ATM Single Entity, as follows: Exporter PRC-Wide Entity (which includes the ATM Single Entity) .......................................... Weightedaverage dumping margin (percent) 82.12 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 AR1 Remand, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity, which includes the ATM Single Entity.8 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 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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. 2016–00923 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 8 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). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–918] Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People’s Republic of China; 2014– 2015; Partial Rescission of the Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 3, 2015, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). Based on M&B Metal Products Co., Ltd.’s (‘‘Petitioner’’) timely withdrawal of the requests for review of certain companies, we are now rescinding this administrative review with respect to 44 companies. DATES: Effective January 19, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Weeks, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4877. AGENCY: Background On October 1, 2015, the Department published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of the antidumping order on steel wire garment hangers from the PRC.1 In November 2015, the Department received multiple timely requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the PRC.2 Based upon these requests, on December 3, 2015, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the Order covering the period October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015.3 The Department initiated the administrative review with respect to 46 companies.4 On December 16, 2015, Petitioner withdrew its request for an 1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 80 FR 59135 (October 1, 2015). 2 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 58111 (October 6, 2008) (‘‘Order’’). 3 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 75657 (December 3, 2015). 4 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2845 administrative review on 44 companies.5 Partial Rescission Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. All requests for administrative reviews on the 44 companies listed in the Appendix were withdrawn.6 Accordingly, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to these entities, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). This administrative review will continue with respect to Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Wells Ltd. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as the only reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. 5 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioner ‘‘Seventh Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from China—Petitioner’s Withdrawal of Review Request’’ (December 16, 2015). 6 As stated in Change in Practice in NME Reviews, the Department will no longer consider the nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013). E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2844-2845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00923]


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

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, 
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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

Background

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 2845]]

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 AR1 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 AR1 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)....        82.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 AR1 Remand, the Department has established a new cash 
deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity, which includes the ATM Single 
Entity.\8\ Therefore, the cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity 
does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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. 2016-00923 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P