Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative; 2008-2009, 4256-4258 [2016-01509]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
4256
DATES:
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices
Effective Date: January 26, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Medley at (202) 482–4987,
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
30, 2015, the Department published a
notice of initiation of the LTFV
investigations of certain corrosionresistant steel from Italy, India, the
People’s Republic of China, Korea, and
Taiwan.1 The period of investigation is
April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015.
On January 4, 2016, the Department
published its negative Preliminary
Determination in the LTFV investigation
of corrosion-resistant steel from
Taiwan.2 On December 28, 2015, AK
Steel Corporation, with the concurrence
of ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor
Corporation, Steel Dynamics Inc.,
California Steel Industries, and United
States Steel Corporation (collectively
‘‘Petitioners’’), requested that the
Department postpone its final
determination to align with the
deadlines of the other investigations of
corrosion-resistant steel from the
People’s Republic of China, India, Italy,
and Korea.3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Postponement of Final Determination
Section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19
CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i), provide that a final
determination may be postponed until
not later than 135 days after the date of
the publication of the preliminary
determination if, in the event of a
negative preliminary determination, a
request for such postponement is made
by the petitioner. In accordance with
section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i), because (1) our
preliminary determination was negative;
(2) the request was made by Petitioners;
and (3) no compelling reasons for denial
exist, we are postponing the final
determination until no later than 135
days after the publication of the
Preliminary Determination (i.e., to May
1 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products
From Italy, India, the People’s Republic of China,
the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Initiation of
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 37228
(June 30, 2015).
2 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products
from Taiwan: Negative Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 72 (January
4, 2016), and accompanying Preliminary Decision
Memorandum (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’).
3 See the letter from AK Steel Corporation
entitled, ‘‘Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel
Products From Taiwan: Request For Postponement
Of The Final Determination,’’ dated December 28,
2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:57 Jan 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
18, 2016), in alignment with the
deadlines of the other investigations of
corrosion-resistant steel from the
People’s Republic of China, India, Italy,
and Korea.4 Accordingly, we will issue
our final determination no later than
135 days after the date of publication of
the Preliminary Determination.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).
Dated: January 13, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–01566 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
From the People’s Republic of China:
Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Notice of Amended Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative; 2008–2009
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 21, 2015, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘Court’’) issued its final
judgment 1 sustaining the Department of
Commerce’s (the ‘‘Department’’) final
results of redetermination 2 issued
pursuant to the CIT’s remand order in
Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United
States, 986 F. Supp. 2d 1389 (CIT 2014)
(‘‘CPZ 08–09 II’’), with respect to the
Department’s final results 3 of the
twenty-second administrative review of
AGENCY:
4 See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel
Products From Italy: Preliminary Affirmative
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 69
(January 4, 2016), and accompanying Preliminary
Decision Memorandum.
1 See, Peer Bearing Company—Changshan v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 11–00022, Slip
Op. 15–143 (CIT 2015) (‘‘CPZ 08–09 III’’), and
accompanying judgment order.
2 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Peer Bearing Company—
Changshan v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11–
00022, Slip Op. 14–62 (CIT 2014) (‘‘Second Remand
Redetermination’’).
3 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of the 2008–2009
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
3086 (January 19, 2011) (‘‘Final Results’’) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
(‘‘IDM’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the antidumping duty order on tapered
roller bearings and parts thereof,
finished and unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).
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 is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in
harmony with the Department’s Final
Results and is amending the Final
Results with respect to the dumping
margins determined for Peer Bearing
Company– Changshan and Changshan
Peer Bearing Co., Ltd.4
DATES: Effective Date: December 31,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keith A. Haynes, Office III, Enforcement
and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5139.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 21, 2012, the Court issued its
initial opinion and remanded the Final
Results, ordering that the Department:
(1) redetermine the surrogate value
(‘‘SV’’) applied to PBCD/CPZ’s input of
bearing-quality steel bar; (2) reconsider
its determination to calculate the
normal value (‘‘NV’’) of subject
merchandise that was imported by
PBCD/Peer prior to its acquisition by
SKF, but sold by SKF/Peer subsequent
to the acquisition, using SKF/CPZ’s
factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’); and (3)
reconsider, and modify as appropriate,
its determination of the country of
4 Prior to September 11, 2008, Peer Bearing
Company-Changshan was majority-owned by the
Spungen family (‘‘PBCD/CPZ’’). On September 11,
2008, two and a half months into the period of
review (‘‘POR’’), PBCD/CPZ, the sole respondent in
the prior 2007–2008 POR, and its Illinois-based U.S.
sales affiliate, Peer Bearing Company (‘‘PBCD/
Peer’’) (collectively, ‘‘PBCD’’), were each purchased
by certain companies owned by SKF. In the
underlying review, we found that the postacquisition respondent was not the successor-ininterest to the pre-acquisition respondent and, thus,
were each legally distinct entities for the purposes
of this antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) review. The postacquisition respondent is referred to as the SKFowned Changshan Peer Bearing Company, Ltd.
(‘‘SKF/CPZ’’) and its Illinois-based affiliate is
referred to as Peer Bearing Company (‘‘SKF/Peer’’)
(collectively ‘‘SKF’’). For ease of reference, the two
respondents are referred to by their collective
names ‘‘PBCD’’ and ‘‘SKF’’ throughout this
document. For the purpose of generally referencing
the physical facilities in question during the POR
in its entirety, without consideration of ownership,
the Changshan-based TRB production facility is
referred to as ‘‘CPZ’’ and the Illinois-based U.S.
sales affiliate is referred to as ‘‘Peer.’’
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
origin of TRBs that were finished, and
assembled in Thailand from TRB
component parts both finished (i.e.,
cups and cones) and unfinished (i.e.,
rollers and cages) initially produced in
and subsequently exported from the
PRC.5
In the First Remand
Redetermination,6 pursuant to CPZ 08–
09 I, the Department: (1) determined
that Thai import data under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading
7228.30.90 are the best available
information on the record with which to
value PBCD/CPZ’s bearing-quality steel
bar inputs, and adjusted the margin
program accordingly; and (2) recalculated the weighted-average
dumping margin for SKF so that PBCD/
CPZ’s FOPs (not SKF/CPZ’s FOPs) were
used to determine the NV of SKF/Peer’s
post-acquisition sales of pre-acquisition
inventory.7 With respect to the Court’s
directive to reconsider the country of
origin finding from the Final Results
and modify its determination, as
necessary, the Department reconsidered
its determination in its entirety,
applying its established criteria for
determining whether merchandise is
substantially transformed in another
country. The Department expanded
upon and further supported the existing
findings as to the physical/chemical
properties/essential character,8 nature/
sophistication of processing,9 level of
investment,10 and cost of production
(‘‘COP’’)/value-added,11 finding that
these factors continued to support an
overall finding that the third-country
processing was not substantial so as to
confer Thai origin. Consistent with the
Court’s remand order, the Department
also discussed and further explained the
relevance of the class-kind/scope 12 and
ultimate use 13 criteria used in the
underlying analysis. The Department
did not ‘‘reach a determination as to
whether circumvention has occurred or
may occur and, thus, {found} that this
element {did} not preclude or support
a finding of substantial
transformation.’’ 14 Based on the totality
of circumstances, the Department
5 See Peer Bearing Company-Changshan v. United
States, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (CIT 2012) (‘‘CPZ 08–
09 I’’).
6 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Remand, Consol. Court No. 11–00022, Slip Op.
12–125 (CIT 2012), dated May 13, 2013 (‘‘First
Remand Redetermination’’).
7 See First Remand Redetermination at 36–40.
8 Id., at 16–20.
9 Id., at 13–15.
10 Id., at 26–32.
11 Id., at 20–26.
12 Id., at 10–13.
13 Id., at 34–35.
14 Id., at 34.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:57 Jan 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
determined in the First Remand
Redetermination that:
{T}he Thai processing does not
substantially transform the TRB parts and
that the TRBs remain of PRC-origin. The
nature and sophistication of processing
indicate that the finishing processes in
Thailand serve only to further refine the cup
and cone’s finished measurements, polish the
raceway, and assemble the components
together. The physical/chemical properties
and essential component are imparted in the
PRC, with the properties added in Thailand
marginal in comparison. The COP/value
added in Thailand is insignificant when
compared to the COP of the finished TRB.
The level of investment in Thailand was not
as significant as the investment in the PRC.
The ultimate use of TRB parts and final,
finished TRBs is the same. These factors
weigh in favor of a finding that the TRBs
which are finished in Thailand are of PRCorigin. The class or kind/scope criterion is
not determinative to our finding, although
the fact that the upstream product is within
the same class or kind and scope as the
downstream product is relevant to our
country-of-origin determination.15
On June 10, 2014, the CIT issued CPZ
08–09 II, in which it sustained the
Department’s re-determined SV for
bearing-quality steel bar. However, the
Court remanded, for a second time, the
Department’s country of origin
determination.16 Specifically, the Court
found that ‘‘the method and criteria
applied in the Remand Redetermination
caused Commerce to ignore critical
record evidence’’ and that ‘‘the record
lacked substantial evidence to support
the ultimate finding Commerce reached
in the {First} Remand
Redetermination.’’17 The Court further
noted that the product at issue (i.e.,
merchandise completed or assembled in
a third country, Thailand) was ‘‘of a
type Congress contemplated would be
the subject of an anti-circumvention
inquiry, without actually conducting
such an inquiry.’’18 In so doing, the
Court found that the Department
‘‘exceeded its authority to interpret,
without expanding, the scope language’’
of the TRBs order.19 Finally, though the
Court held that the Department
provided adequate reasoning for using
PBCD/CPZ’s FOP data to calculate the
NV for pre-acquisition PBCD/CPZproduced merchandise subsequently
sold by SKF/Peer during the postacquisition portion of the POR in the
First Remand Redetermination, the
Court remanded for further explanation
the Department’s use of PBCD/CPZ’s
FOP data from the twenty-second POR,
4257
rather than PBCD/CPZ’s FOP data from
the prior POR.20
In compliance with the Court’s
instructions, the Department under
protest re-determined the country of
origin for certain merchandise under
review, and revised the dumping margin
calculations to exclude U.S. sales of
TRBs further processed in Thailand,
finding those TRBs to be Thai-origin.21
In particular, the Department explained
that it ‘‘did not conduct a circumvention
analysis pursuant to section 781(b) of
the {Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’)}’’ and thus could not ‘‘find
that the TRBs in question are of Chinse
origin.’’22 With respect to the remaining
issue on remand, the Department
explained that it is consistent with
section 773(c)(4) of the Act, to use
production data from the POR in which
the merchandise is sold, because this
best reflects the producer’s production
experience from the period in which the
Department is determining the margin
of dumping; therefore, the Department
did not find that PBCD/CPZ’s FOP data
from the prior POR is a more accurate
reflection of PBCD’s production of
merchandise sold by SKF during the
POR.23 Therefore, to determine the
margin for SKF/Peer’s sales of
merchandise produced by PBCD/CPZ,
the Department continued to use PBCD/
CPZ’s POR-contemporaneous FOPs to
calculate NV. Along with the SV
changes sustained in CPZ 08–09 II, the
Department calculated weighted-average
dumping margins for PBCD of 21.65
percent and SKF of 19.45 percent.24
On December 21, 2015, the CIT issued
its decision in CPZ 08–09 III, in which
it sustained the Department’s Second
Remand Redetermination. Specifically,
the Court sustained the Department’s
decision regarding selection of the FOP
data used to value post-acquisition sales
of pre-acquisition inventory.25
Furthermore, with respect to the
country of origin finding, the Court
concluded that the Department reached
an ultimate determination that is
supported by substantial evidence on
the record that accords with a
reasonable, rather than expansive,
interpretation of the scope of the
antidumping duty order. The Court
found that the Department’s analysis
presented in the Second Remand
Redetermination, although suffering
from some flaws in the interpretation of
the Court’s holding in CPZ 08–09 II, was
20 Id.
15 Id.,
at 35–36.
16 See CPZ 08–09 II, 986 F. Supp. 2d at 1414.
17 Id., at 1406.
18 Id., at 1402–03.
19 Id., at 1406.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21 See
Second Remand Redetermination at 8.
22 Id.
23 Id,
at 12–13.
at 17.
25 See CPZ 08–09 III, at 7.
24 Id.,
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4258
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices
sufficient to allow the Court to sustain
the Department’s ultimate
determination.26
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
the CAFC 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 CIT’s
December 21, 2015, judgment in this
case constitutes a final court decision
that is not in harmony with the
Department’s Final Results. This notice
is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Results
As a result, of the Court’s final
decision with respect to this case, the
Department is amending the Final
Results with respect to PBCD/SKF and
SKF/CPZ in this case. The revised
weighted-average dumping margins for
the June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009,
period of review are as follows:
Exporter
Peer Bearing Company—
Changshan (Spungenowned, PBCD) ..................
Changshan Peer Bearing
Company, Ltd. (SKFowned, SKF) .....................
Final percent
margin
21.65
19.45
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. In the event 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 assess antidumping duties
on unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise exported by the above
listed exporters at the rate listed above.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
Since the Final Results, the
Department has established a new cash
deposit rate for SKF/CPZ.27 Therefore,
the cash deposit rate for SKF does not
need to be updated as a result of these
amended final results.
26 Id.,
at 15–19.
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Final Results of the New Shipper Review; 2012–
2013, 80 FR 4244 (January 27, 2015).
27 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:57 Jan 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
Since the Final Results, the
Department has not established a new
cash deposit rate for PBCD/CPZ.
However, as explained above, in
September 2008, PBCD/CPZ was
acquired by AB SKF, and the
Department determined via a successorin-interest analysis that SKF/CPZ was
not its successor in interest. As a
consequence, PBCD/CPZ effectively no
longer exists, and its cash deposit rate
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),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 13, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–01509 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket Number: 150302201–6024–02]
Award Competitions for Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) Centers in the States of
Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Montana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Utah and
Vermont
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), United States
Department of Commerce (DoC).
ACTION: Notice of funding availability.
AGENCY:
NIST invites applications
from eligible organizations in
connection with NIST’s funding up to
thirteen (13) separate MEP cooperative
agreements for the operation of an MEP
Center in the designated States’ service
areas and in the funding amounts
identified in the corresponding Federal
Funding Opportunity (FFO). NIST
anticipates awarding one (1) cooperative
agreement for each of the identified
States. The objective of the MEP Center
Program is to provide manufacturing
extension services to primarily small
and medium-sized manufacturers
within the States designated in the
corresponding FFO. The selected
organization will become part of the
MEP national system of extension
service providers, currently located
throughout the United States and Puerto
Rico.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Electronic applications must be
received no later than 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on April 25, 2016. Paper
applications will not be accepted.
Applications received after the deadline
will not be reviewed or considered. The
approximate start date for awards under
this notice and the corresponding FFO
is expected to be October 1, 2016.
When developing your submission
timeline, please keep in mind that (1) all
applicants are required to have a current
registration in the System for Award
Management (SAM.gov); (2) the free
annual registration process in the
electronic System for Award
Management (SAM.gov) may take
between three and five business days, or
as long as more than two weeks; and (3)
electronic applicants are required to
have a current registration in
Grants.gov; and (4) applicants will
receive a series of email messages from
Grants.gov over a period of up to two
business days before learning whether a
Federal agency’s electronic system has
received its application. Please note that
a federal assistance award cannot be
issued if the designated recipient’s
registration in the System for Award
Management (SAM.gov) is not current at
the time of the award.
ADDRESSES: Applications must be
submitted electronically through
www.grants.gov. NIST will not accept
applications submitted by mail,
facsimile, or by email.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Administrative, budget, cost-sharing,
and eligibility questions and other
programmatic questions should be
directed to Diane Henderson at Tel:
(301) 975–5105; Email: mepffo@nist.gov;
Fax: (301) 963–6556. Grants Rules and
Regulation questions should be
addressed to: Michael Teske, Grants
Management Division, National Institute
of Standards and Technology, 100
Bureau Drive, Stop 1650, Gaithersburg,
MD 20899–1650; Tel: (301) 975–6358;
Email: michael.teske@nist.gov; Fax:
(301) 975–6368. For technical assistance
with Grants.gov submissions contact
Christopher Hunton at Tel: (301) 975–
5718; Email: grants.gov@nist.gov; Fax:
(301) 975–8884. Questions submitted to
NIST/MEP may be posted as part of an
FAQ document, which will be
periodically updated on the MEP Web
site at https://nist.gov/mep/ffo-statecompetitions-03.cfm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic access: Applicants are
strongly encouraged to read the
corresponding FFO announcement
available at www.grants.gov for
complete information about this
program, including all program
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4256-4258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01509]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative; 2008-2009
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 21, 2015, the United States Court of International
Trade (``CIT'' or ``Court'') issued its final judgment \1\ sustaining
the Department of Commerce's (the ``Department'') final results of
redetermination \2\ issued pursuant to the CIT's remand order in Peer
Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 986 F. Supp. 2d 1389 (CIT 2014)
(``CPZ 08-09 II''), with respect to the Department's final results \3\
of the twenty-second administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and
unfinished (``TRBs''), from People's Republic of China (``PRC'').
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 is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's
Final Results and is amending the Final Results with respect to the
dumping margins determined for Peer Bearing Company- Changshan and
Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, Peer Bearing Company--Changshan v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 11-00022, Slip Op. 15-143 (CIT 2015) (``CPZ 08-09
III''), and accompanying judgment order.
\2\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Peer Bearing Company--Changshan v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 11-00022, Slip Op. 14-62 (CIT 2014) (``Second Remand
Redetermination'').
\3\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 3086
(January 19, 2011) (``Final Results'') and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (``IDM'').
\4\ Prior to September 11, 2008, Peer Bearing Company-Changshan
was majority-owned by the Spungen family (``PBCD/CPZ''). On
September 11, 2008, two and a half months into the period of review
(``POR''), PBCD/CPZ, the sole respondent in the prior 2007-2008 POR,
and its Illinois-based U.S. sales affiliate, Peer Bearing Company
(``PBCD/Peer'') (collectively, ``PBCD''), were each purchased by
certain companies owned by SKF. In the underlying review, we found
that the post-acquisition respondent was not the successor-in-
interest to the pre-acquisition respondent and, thus, were each
legally distinct entities for the purposes of this antidumping duty
(``AD'') review. The post-acquisition respondent is referred to as
the SKF-owned Changshan Peer Bearing Company, Ltd. (``SKF/CPZ'') and
its Illinois-based affiliate is referred to as Peer Bearing Company
(``SKF/Peer'') (collectively ``SKF''). For ease of reference, the
two respondents are referred to by their collective names ``PBCD''
and ``SKF'' throughout this document. For the purpose of generally
referencing the physical facilities in question during the POR in
its entirety, without consideration of ownership, the Changshan-
based TRB production facility is referred to as ``CPZ'' and the
Illinois-based U.S. sales affiliate is referred to as ``Peer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 31, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith A. Haynes, Office III,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5139.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 21, 2012, the Court issued its
initial opinion and remanded the Final Results, ordering that the
Department: (1) redetermine the surrogate value (``SV'') applied to
PBCD/CPZ's input of bearing-quality steel bar; (2) reconsider its
determination to calculate the normal value (``NV'') of subject
merchandise that was imported by PBCD/Peer prior to its acquisition by
SKF, but sold by SKF/Peer subsequent to the acquisition, using SKF/
CPZ's factors of production (``FOPs''); and (3) reconsider, and modify
as appropriate, its determination of the country of
[[Page 4257]]
origin of TRBs that were finished, and assembled in Thailand from TRB
component parts both finished (i.e., cups and cones) and unfinished
(i.e., rollers and cages) initially produced in and subsequently
exported from the PRC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Peer Bearing Company-Changshan v. United States, 884 F.
Supp. 2d 1313 (CIT 2012) (``CPZ 08-09 I'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the First Remand Redetermination,\6\ pursuant to CPZ 08-09 I,
the Department: (1) determined that Thai import data under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule subheading 7228.30.90 are the best available
information on the record with which to value PBCD/CPZ's bearing-
quality steel bar inputs, and adjusted the margin program accordingly;
and (2) re-calculated the weighted-average dumping margin for SKF so
that PBCD/CPZ's FOPs (not SKF/CPZ's FOPs) were used to determine the NV
of SKF/Peer's post-acquisition sales of pre-acquisition inventory.\7\
With respect to the Court's directive to reconsider the country of
origin finding from the Final Results and modify its determination, as
necessary, the Department reconsidered its determination in its
entirety, applying its established criteria for determining whether
merchandise is substantially transformed in another country. The
Department expanded upon and further supported the existing findings as
to the physical/chemical properties/essential character,\8\ nature/
sophistication of processing,\9\ level of investment,\10\ and cost of
production (``COP'')/value-added,\11\ finding that these factors
continued to support an overall finding that the third-country
processing was not substantial so as to confer Thai origin. Consistent
with the Court's remand order, the Department also discussed and
further explained the relevance of the class-kind/scope \12\ and
ultimate use \13\ criteria used in the underlying analysis. The
Department did not ``reach a determination as to whether circumvention
has occurred or may occur and, thus, {found{time} that this element
{did{time} not preclude or support a finding of substantial
transformation.'' \14\ Based on the totality of circumstances, the
Department determined in the First Remand Redetermination that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand,
Consol. Court No. 11-00022, Slip Op. 12-125 (CIT 2012), dated May
13, 2013 (``First Remand Redetermination'').
\7\ See First Remand Redetermination at 36-40.
\8\ Id., at 16-20.
\9\ Id., at 13-15.
\10\ Id., at 26-32.
\11\ Id., at 20-26.
\12\ Id., at 10-13.
\13\ Id., at 34-35.
\14\ Id., at 34.
{T{time} he Thai processing does not substantially transform the
TRB parts and that the TRBs remain of PRC-origin. The nature and
sophistication of processing indicate that the finishing processes
in Thailand serve only to further refine the cup and cone's finished
measurements, polish the raceway, and assemble the components
together. The physical/chemical properties and essential component
are imparted in the PRC, with the properties added in Thailand
marginal in comparison. The COP/value added in Thailand is
insignificant when compared to the COP of the finished TRB. The
level of investment in Thailand was not as significant as the
investment in the PRC. The ultimate use of TRB parts and final,
finished TRBs is the same. These factors weigh in favor of a finding
that the TRBs which are finished in Thailand are of PRC-origin. The
class or kind/scope criterion is not determinative to our finding,
although the fact that the upstream product is within the same class
or kind and scope as the downstream product is relevant to our
country-of-origin determination.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id., at 35-36.
On June 10, 2014, the CIT issued CPZ 08-09 II, in which it
sustained the Department's re-determined SV for bearing-quality steel
bar. However, the Court remanded, for a second time, the Department's
country of origin determination.\16\ Specifically, the Court found that
``the method and criteria applied in the Remand Redetermination caused
Commerce to ignore critical record evidence'' and that ``the record
lacked substantial evidence to support the ultimate finding Commerce
reached in the {First{time} Remand Redetermination.''\17\ The Court
further noted that the product at issue (i.e., merchandise completed or
assembled in a third country, Thailand) was ``of a type Congress
contemplated would be the subject of an anti-circumvention inquiry,
without actually conducting such an inquiry.''\18\ In so doing, the
Court found that the Department ``exceeded its authority to interpret,
without expanding, the scope language'' of the TRBs order.\19\ Finally,
though the Court held that the Department provided adequate reasoning
for using PBCD/CPZ's FOP data to calculate the NV for pre-acquisition
PBCD/CPZ-produced merchandise subsequently sold by SKF/Peer during the
post-acquisition portion of the POR in the First Remand
Redetermination, the Court remanded for further explanation the
Department's use of PBCD/CPZ's FOP data from the twenty-second POR,
rather than PBCD/CPZ's FOP data from the prior POR.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See CPZ 08-09 II, 986 F. Supp. 2d at 1414.
\17\ Id., at 1406.
\18\ Id., at 1402-03.
\19\ Id., at 1406.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In compliance with the Court's instructions, the Department under
protest re-determined the country of origin for certain merchandise
under review, and revised the dumping margin calculations to exclude
U.S. sales of TRBs further processed in Thailand, finding those TRBs to
be Thai-origin.\21\ In particular, the Department explained that it
``did not conduct a circumvention analysis pursuant to section 781(b)
of the {Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''){time} '' and thus
could not ``find that the TRBs in question are of Chinse origin.''\22\
With respect to the remaining issue on remand, the Department explained
that it is consistent with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, to use
production data from the POR in which the merchandise is sold, because
this best reflects the producer's production experience from the period
in which the Department is determining the margin of dumping;
therefore, the Department did not find that PBCD/CPZ's FOP data from
the prior POR is a more accurate reflection of PBCD's production of
merchandise sold by SKF during the POR.\23\ Therefore, to determine the
margin for SKF/Peer's sales of merchandise produced by PBCD/CPZ, the
Department continued to use PBCD/CPZ's POR-contemporaneous FOPs to
calculate NV. Along with the SV changes sustained in CPZ 08-09 II, the
Department calculated weighted-average dumping margins for PBCD of
21.65 percent and SKF of 19.45 percent.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Second Remand Redetermination at 8.
\22\ Id.
\23\ Id, at 12-13.
\24\ Id., at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 2015, the CIT issued its decision in CPZ 08-09 III,
in which it sustained the Department's Second Remand Redetermination.
Specifically, the Court sustained the Department's decision regarding
selection of the FOP data used to value post-acquisition sales of pre-
acquisition inventory.\25\ Furthermore, with respect to the country of
origin finding, the Court concluded that the Department reached an
ultimate determination that is supported by substantial evidence on the
record that accords with a reasonable, rather than expansive,
interpretation of the scope of the antidumping duty order. The Court
found that the Department's analysis presented in the Second Remand
Redetermination, although suffering from some flaws in the
interpretation of the Court's holding in CPZ 08-09 II, was
[[Page 4258]]
sufficient to allow the Court to sustain the Department's ultimate
determination.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See CPZ 08-09 III, at 7.
\26\ Id., at 15-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades, the CAFC 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
CIT's December 21, 2015, judgment in this case constitutes a final
court decision that is not in harmony with the Department's Final
Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Results
As a result, of the Court's final decision with respect to this
case, the Department is amending the Final Results with respect to
PBCD/SKF and SKF/CPZ in this case. The revised weighted-average dumping
margins for the June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009, period of review
are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final percent
Exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peer Bearing Company--Changshan (Spungen-owned, PBCD)... 21.65
Changshan Peer Bearing Company, Ltd. (SKF-owned, SKF)... 19.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. In the
event 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 assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise exported by the above listed exporters at the rate listed
above.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Since the Final Results, the Department has established a new cash
deposit rate for SKF/CPZ.\27\ Therefore, the cash deposit rate for SKF
does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of the
New Shipper Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 4244 (January 27, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Final Results, the Department has not established a new
cash deposit rate for PBCD/CPZ. However, as explained above, in
September 2008, PBCD/CPZ was acquired by AB SKF, and the Department
determined via a successor-in-interest analysis that SKF/CPZ was not
its successor in interest. As a consequence, PBCD/CPZ effectively no
longer exists, and its cash deposit rate 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), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 13, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-01509 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
