Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 7749-7750 [2016-02998]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices
constituting the sides of the openings and
integral junctions where the strands intersect.
The scope includes products in which foursided figures predominate whether or not
they also contain additional strands
intersecting the four-sided figures and
whether or not the inside corners of the foursided figures are rounded off or not sharp
angles. As used herein, the term ‘‘integral’’
refers to strands and junctions that are
homogenous with each other. The products
covered have a tensile strength of greater
than 5 kilonewtons per meter (‘‘kN/m’’)
according to American Society for Testing
and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) Standard Test
Method D6637/D6637M in any direction and
average overall flexural stiffness of more than
100,000 milligram-centimeter according to
the ASTM D7748/D7748M Standard Test
Method for Flexural Rigidity of Geogrids,
Geotextiles and Related Products, or other
equivalent test method standards.
Subject merchandise includes material
matching the above description that has been
finished, packaged, or otherwise further
processed in a third country, including by
trimming, slitting, coating, cutting, punching
holes, stretching, attaching to woven or nonwoven fabric or sheet material, or any other
finishing, packaging, or other further
processing that would not otherwise remove
the merchandise from the scope of the
investigation if performed in the country of
manufacture of the biaxial integral geogrid.
The products subject to the scope are
currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’)
under the following subheading:
3926.90.9995. Subject merchandise may also
enter under subheadings 3920.20.0050 and
3925.90.0000. The HTSUS subheadings set
forth above are provided for convenience and
U.S. Customs purposes only. The written
description of the scope is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2016–03071 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–967; C–570–968]
Aluminum Extrusions From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
Final Scope Ruling and Notice of
Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant
to Court Decision
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 20, 2016, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the
Department of Commerce’s
(Department) third and final results of
redetermination,1 in which the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 See Meridian LLC v. United States, Court No.
13–00018, Slip Op. 16–5 (CIT January 20, 2016)
(Meridian V), which sustained the Final Results of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
Department determined, under protest,
that certain refrigerator/freezer trim kits
meet the description of excluded
finished goods kits and are therefore not
covered by the scope of the Orders,2
pursuant to the CIT’s remand order in
Meridian LLC v. United States, Court
No. 13–00018, Slip Op. 15–67 (CIT June
23, 2015) (Meridian IV).
Consistent with the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,3 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,4 the
Department is notifying the public that
the Court’s final judgment in this case
is not in harmony with the Department’s
Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim
Kits and is therefore amending its final
scope ruling.5
DATES: Effective date: January 30, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–
482–3965.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 17, 2012, the Department
issued its Final Scope Ruling on
Refrigerator Trim Kits in which it
determined that the refrigerator/freezer
trim kits imported by Meridian LLC
(Meridian) did not meet the scope
exclusions for ‘‘finished merchandise’’
and ‘‘finished goods kits.’’ 6 In
particular, the Department held that
because the trim kits at issue consisted
of pieces of aluminum extrusions plus
fasteners and extraneous materials, they
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand,
Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No.
13–00018, Slip. Op. 15–67 (Oct. 29, 2015) (Third
Remand).
2 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR
30650 (May 26, 2011) and Aluminum Extrusions
from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing
Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011) (Orders).
3 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
4 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
5 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Final Scope
Ruling on Certain Refrigerator/Freezer Trim Kits,’’
(December 17, 2012) (Final Scope Ruling on
Refrigerator Trim Kits).
6 The finished goods kit exclusion states: ‘‘A
finished goods kits is understood to mean a
packaged combination of parts that contains, at the
time of importation, all of the necessary parts to
fully assemble a final finished good and requires no
further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or
punching, and is assembled ‘as is’ into a finished
product.’’ The scope further states that, ‘‘{a}n
imported product will not be considered a ‘finished
goods kit’’ and therefore excluded from the scope
of the investigation merely by including fasteners
such as screws, bolts, etc. in the packaging with an
aluminum extrusion product.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7749
did not meet either scope exclusion.
Therefore, the Department found the
products at issue to be within the scope
of the Orders.7
As discussed in further detail in the
Third Remand, the Court remanded the
Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim
Kits three times.8 Most recently, in
Meridian IV, the Court held that the
Department’s long-standing recognition
of a ‘‘fasteners’’ exception to the
‘‘finished goods kit’’ exclusion is
unreasonable, finding that ‘‘the
inclusion of ‘fasteners’ or ‘extraneous
materials’ is not determinative when
qualifying a kit consistent of multiple
parts which otherwise meets the
exclusionary requirements, as a
‘finished goods kit.’ ’’ 9 Additionally, the
Court explained that there is nothing in
the scope language that indicates that
the parts of a finished goods kit cannot
consist entirely of aluminum
extrusions.10 The Court explained that
‘‘to qualify as a ‘finished goods kit’, a kit
must contain every part required to
assemble the final finished good, and it
logically follows that if a kit is imported
with all of the parts necessary to fully
assemble the kit into its final finished
form, then obviously (and necessarily)
some of those ‘parts’ may be
fasteners.’’ 11
In the Third Remand, the Department
found, in accordance with the Court’s
instructions in Meridian IV, under
respectful protest, that Meridian’s trim
kits are excluded from the scope of the
Orders as finished goods kits because at
the time of importation, the kits
contained all the parts necessary to
assemble a final finished good—a
complete trim kit.12 In Meridian V, the
Court sustained the Third Remand in its
entirety.13
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken 14 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the
CAFC has held that, pursuant to
sections 516A(c) and (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 CIT’s January 20, 2016, judgment in
Meridian V sustaining the Department’s
decision in the Third Remand to find
7 See Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim
Kits at 11.
8 See Third Remand at 6–10.
9 See Meridian IV, Slip Op. 15–67 at 12–13.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 14 (emphasis omitted).
12 See Third Remand at 14.
13 See Meridian V, Slip Op. 16–5 at 4.
14 See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
E:\FR\FM\16FEN1.SGM
16FEN1
7750
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices
that Meridian’s trim kits are excluded
from the scope of the Orders constitutes
a final decision of that court that is not
in harmony with the Department’s Final
Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim Kits.
This notice is published in fulfillment
of the publication requirements of
Timken. Accordingly, the Department
will continue the suspension of
liquidation of the trim kits at issue
pending expiration of the period of
appeal or, if appealed, pending a final
and conclusive court decision.
In accordance with the Courts
instructions in Meridian IV, we
determine that Meridian’s trim kits are
excluded from the scope of the Orders
as finished goods kits.
Amended Final Determination
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to the Final Scope
Ruling on Refrigerator Trim Kits, the
Department amends its final scope
ruling. The Department finds that the
scope of the Orders does not cover the
products addressed in the Final Scope
Ruling on Refrigerator Trim Kits. The
Department will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) that the
cash deposit rate will be zero percent for
the refrigerator/freezer trim kits
imported by Meridian. In the event that
the CIT’s ruling is not appealed, or if
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the
Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate entries of Meridian’s
Refrigerator Trim Kits without regard to
antidumping and/or countervailing
duties, and to lift suspension of
liquidation of such entries.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: February 8, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–02998 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[A–533–824]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From India: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2013–2014
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: For the final results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty (AD) order on
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,
and strip (PET Film) from India, we find
that Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal)
and the four-non selected respondents
made sales of subject merchandise at
less than normal value; we also find that
SRF Limited (SRF) did not make sales
of subject merchandise at less than
normal value. The period of review is
July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014.
DATES: Effective date: February 16, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Myrna Lobo or Alexander Cipolla, AD/
CVD Operations, Office VII,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–2371 and (202) 482–4956,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 6, 2015, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) published
the Preliminary Results.1 For a history
of events that have occurred since the
Preliminary Results, see the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file electronically
via Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(ACCESS). ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
access.trade.gov, and is available to all
parties in the Central Records Unit,
Room B8024 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Internet at https://
trade.gov/login.aspx. The signed Issues
and Decision Memorandum and the
electronic versions of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
As explained in the memorandum
from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement & Compliance, the
Department has exercised its discretion
to toll all administrative deadlines due
to the recent closure of the Federal
Government. All deadlines in this
segment of the proceeding have been
1 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip From India: Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2013–2014, 80 FR 46957 (August 6, 2015)
(Preliminary Results).
2 See Department Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film From India; 2013–
2014 Administrative Review’’ (Issues and Decision
Memorandum), dated concurrently with, and
hereby adopted by, this notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
extended by four business days. The
revised deadline for the final results of
this review is now February 8, 2016.3
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the AD order
are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or
primed PET Film, whether extruded or
coextruded. Excluded are metallized
films and other finished films that have
had at least one of their surfaces
modified by the application of a
performance-enhancing resinous or
inorganic layer of more than 0.00001
inches thick. Imports of PET Film are
currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under item number
3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written description of the
scope of the AD order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs are
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum. A list of issues raised
and to which we respond in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum is attached
to this notice as an Appendix.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record and
comments received from interested
parties regarding our Preliminary
Results, we have made changes to SRF’s
and Jindal’s calculations.4 In addition,
we have adjusted Jindal’s reported U.S.
prices to account for changes in its
export subsidies in the final results of
the companion countervailing duty
administrative review.5
Additionally, for companies not
selected for individual review, we have
assigned the rate calculated for Jindal in
the final results of this review, in
accordance with section 735(c)(5) of the
Act.
3 See Memorandum to the Record from Ron
Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement &
Compliance, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative
Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure
During Snowstorm Jonas,’’ dated January 27, 2016.
4 See Memoranda to Thomas Gilgunn, Program
Manager ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip from India: Jindal Poly Films Limited,
and ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from India: SRF Limited,’’ both dated concurrently
with these final results.
5 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip From India: Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; 2013, 80 FR 46956 (August 3, 2015). See
also Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review; 2013 (signed February
2, 2016).
E:\FR\FM\16FEN1.SGM
16FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7749-7750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02998]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-967; C-570-968]
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of
Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 20, 2016, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's
(Department) third and final results of redetermination,\1\ in which
the Department determined, under protest, that certain refrigerator/
freezer trim kits meet the description of excluded finished goods kits
and are therefore not covered by the scope of the Orders,\2\ pursuant
to the CIT's remand order in Meridian LLC v. United States, Court No.
13-00018, Slip Op. 15-67 (CIT June 23, 2015) (Meridian IV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Meridian LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-00018, Slip
Op. 16-5 (CIT January 20, 2016) (Meridian V), which sustained the
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Meridian
Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-00018, Slip. Op. 15-67
(Oct. 29, 2015) (Third Remand).
\2\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011) and Aluminum
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty
Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011) (Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,\3\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\4\ the Department is notifying the public that the Court's
final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's
Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim Kits and is therefore amending
its final scope ruling.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\4\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
\5\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
``Final Scope Ruling on Certain Refrigerator/Freezer Trim Kits,''
(December 17, 2012) (Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim Kits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective date: January 30, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: 202-482-3965.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2012, the Department issued
its Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim Kits in which it determined
that the refrigerator/freezer trim kits imported by Meridian LLC
(Meridian) did not meet the scope exclusions for ``finished
merchandise'' and ``finished goods kits.'' \6\ In particular, the
Department held that because the trim kits at issue consisted of pieces
of aluminum extrusions plus fasteners and extraneous materials, they
did not meet either scope exclusion. Therefore, the Department found
the products at issue to be within the scope of the Orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The finished goods kit exclusion states: ``A finished goods
kits is understood to mean a packaged combination of parts that
contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to
fully assemble a final finished good and requires no further
finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or punching, and is
assembled `as is' into a finished product.'' The scope further
states that, ``{a{time} n imported product will not be considered a
`finished goods kit'' and therefore excluded from the scope of the
investigation merely by including fasteners such as screws, bolts,
etc. in the packaging with an aluminum extrusion product.''
\7\ See Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim Kits at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in further detail in the Third Remand, the Court
remanded the Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim Kits three
times.\8\ Most recently, in Meridian IV, the Court held that the
Department's long-standing recognition of a ``fasteners'' exception to
the ``finished goods kit'' exclusion is unreasonable, finding that
``the inclusion of `fasteners' or `extraneous materials' is not
determinative when qualifying a kit consistent of multiple parts which
otherwise meets the exclusionary requirements, as a `finished goods
kit.' '' \9\ Additionally, the Court explained that there is nothing in
the scope language that indicates that the parts of a finished goods
kit cannot consist entirely of aluminum extrusions.\10\ The Court
explained that ``to qualify as a `finished goods kit', a kit must
contain every part required to assemble the final finished good, and it
logically follows that if a kit is imported with all of the parts
necessary to fully assemble the kit into its final finished form, then
obviously (and necessarily) some of those `parts' may be fasteners.''
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Third Remand at 6-10.
\9\ See Meridian IV, Slip Op. 15-67 at 12-13.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id. at 14 (emphasis omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Third Remand, the Department found, in accordance with the
Court's instructions in Meridian IV, under respectful protest, that
Meridian's trim kits are excluded from the scope of the Orders as
finished goods kits because at the time of importation, the kits
contained all the parts necessary to assemble a final finished good--a
complete trim kit.\12\ In Meridian V, the Court sustained the Third
Remand in its entirety.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Third Remand at 14.
\13\ See Meridian V, Slip Op. 16-5 at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken \14\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
the CAFC has held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (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 CIT's January 20, 2016, judgment in
Meridian V sustaining the Department's decision in the Third Remand to
find
[[Page 7750]]
that Meridian's trim kits are excluded from the scope of the Orders
constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with
the Department's Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim Kits. This
notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of
Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of
liquidation of the trim kits at issue pending expiration of the period
of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the Courts instructions in Meridian IV, we
determine that Meridian's trim kits are excluded from the scope of the
Orders as finished goods kits.
Amended Final Determination
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the
Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim Kits, the Department amends its
final scope ruling. The Department finds that the scope of the Orders
does not cover the products addressed in the Final Scope Ruling on
Refrigerator Trim Kits. The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit rate will be zero percent
for the refrigerator/freezer trim kits imported by Meridian. In the
event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by
the CAFC, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of
Meridian's Refrigerator Trim Kits without regard to antidumping and/or
countervailing duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such
entries.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(c)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 8, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-02998 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P