Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decisions Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 33465-33466 [2016-12543]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2016 / Notices Sunny at the AD cash-deposit rate applicable to Hangzhou ZU Sunny. sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Public Comment Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice.16 Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the due date for case briefs.17 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this changed circumstances review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice.18 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party’s name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 in a room to be determined.19 All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’).20 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (‘‘ET’’) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the APO/ Dockets Unit in Room 18022 and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 5 p.m. ET on the due date.21 Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this changed-circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated or within 45 16 The Department is exercising its discretion under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) to alter the time limit for the filing of case briefs. 17 The Department is exercising its discretion under 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) to alter the time limit for the filing of rebuttal briefs. 18 The Department is exercising its discretion under 19 CFR 351.310(c) to alter the time limit for requesting a hearing. 19 See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 20 ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. 21 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:47 May 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 days if all parties agree to the outcome of the review. We are issuing and publishing this initiation and preliminary results notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3). Dated: May 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–12540 Filed 5–25–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–552–801] Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decisions Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 30, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘the Court’’) issued final judgments in Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12–00087, sustaining the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) AR7 Remand final results.1 In the AR7 Remand, the Department recalculated the weightedaverage dumping margin for QVD Food Co. Ltd. (‘‘QVD’’) and Vinh Hoan Corporation (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’) using revised surrogate values for by-products (fish waste, fresh broken meat, and frozen broken fillets by-products, and capping the fish oil by-product surrogate value).2 Because QVD’s margin changed, it also becomes the margin for those companies not individually examined but receiving a separate rate.3 AGENCY: 1 See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 12–00087, Slip Op. 14–146 (CIT December 18, 2014), dated June 26, 2015, (‘‘AR7 Remand’’) available at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-146.pdf. 2 See AR7 Remand at 25–29. The weightedaverage margin for Vinh Hoan remains de minimis. However, as explained in the ‘‘Background’’ section, the Department’s recalculation of these surrogate values now yields a different weightedaverage dumping margin for QVD. Thus, consistent with our practice, the Department has amended the final results with respect to QVD. 3 These companies include: (1) Anvifish Joint Stock Company; (2) Asia Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company; (3) Bien Dong Seafood; (4) Binh An Seafood Joint Stock Company; (5) CASEAMEX; (6) PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 33465 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 these cases is not in harmony with the Department’s final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) covering the period of review (‘‘POR’’) August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010. Thus, the Department is amending the final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping margins for QVD and the Separate-Rate Applicants.4 DATES: Effective April 11, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, 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) 482–2243. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 14, 2012, the Department issued AR7 Final Results.5 Vinh Hoan and Petitioners 6 timely filed complaints with the Court and challenged certain aspects of the AR7 Final Results. On December 18, 2014, the Court remanded the Department’s AR7 Final Results and instructed the Department to reconsider each of the following issues: (1) The significance of presumed qualifiable differences between farm-gate and wholesale prices with respect to whole live fish; (2) the reliability of the Bangladeshi Department of Agricultural Marketing (‘‘DAM’’) data with respect to whole live fish; (3) the fact that there are no quantities associated with the DAM data; (4) surrogate country selection in East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company; (7) Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Company; (8) Southern Fisheries Industries Company Ltd.; and (9) Vinh Quang Fisheries Joint-Stock Company (collectively, ‘‘Separate-Rate Applicants’’). 4 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 15039 (March 14, 2012) (‘‘AR7 Final Results’’) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5 Id. 6 Catfish Farmers of America and the following individual U.S. catfish processors: America’s Catch, Consolidated Catfish Companies, LLC dba Country Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Harvest Select Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish Company, Pride of the Pond, and Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM 26MYN1 33466 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2016 / Notices light of the totality of the available data, i.e., including the non-fish factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’) surrogate values (‘‘SVs’’) following reconsideration of the whole live fish issues; and (5) the selection of the SVs for fish waste, fish oil, fresh broken meat and frozen broken fillets.7 On June 26, 2015, the Department filed the AR7 Remand with the Court.8 The Department maintained the selection of Bangladesh as the primary country. In addition, the Department selected different surrogate values for fish waste, fresh broken meat, and frozen broken fillets by-products, and capped the fish oil by-product surrogate value. In addition, we accounted for all calculation changes as a result of the original ministerial error allegations. As a result, there are calculation changes due to selecting different byproduct surrogate values. After accounting for all such changes and issues, the resulting antidumping margin for the only mandatory respondent, QVD, is $0.19 per kilogram. Because QVD’s margin changed, it would also become the margin for those companies not individually examined, but receiving a separate rate. On March 30, 2016, the Court entered judgments sustaining the AR7 Remand.9 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 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 March 30, 2016, judgment sustaining the AR7 Remand constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department’s AR7 Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the AR7 Final Results with respect to QVD and the Separate-Rate Applicants. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for these exporters during the period April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010, as follows: Weighted average dumping margin (dollars per kilogram) Exporter name QVD Food Company Ltd 10 ........................................................................................................................................................... Anvifish Joint Stock Company ....................................................................................................................................................... Asia Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company .......................................................................................................................... Bien Dong Seafood ....................................................................................................................................................................... Binh An Seafood Joint Stock Company ........................................................................................................................................ CASEAMEX ................................................................................................................................................................................... East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company ............................................................................................................................. Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Company .................................................................................................................................. Southern Fisheries Industries Company Ltd ................................................................................................................................. Vinh Quang Fisheries Joint-Stock Company ................................................................................................................................ Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. 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 QVD and the Separate-Rate Applicants using the assessment rate calculated by the Department in the Remand and listed above. sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Cash Deposit Requirements Unless the applicable cash deposit rates have been superseded by cash deposit rates calculated in an intervening administrative review of the AD order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the Department will instruct 7 See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United States, Court No. 12–00087, Slip Op. 14–146 (CIT December 18, 2014). 8 See AR7 Remand. 9 See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United States, Court No. 11–00087, Slip. Op. 16–29 (CIT March 30, 2016). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:47 May 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash deposit for estimated AD duties at the rate noted above for each specified exporter and producer combination, for entries of subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after April 11, 2016. For Bien Dong, these amended final results will result in a change in its cash deposit rate, from $0.03/kg, as established in the AR7 Final Results, to $0.19/kg. 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–504] Certain Petroleum Wax Candles From the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) and the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that revocation of the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) order on certain petroleum wax candles (‘‘candles’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the 10 This rate is also applicable to QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dong Thap’’) and Thuan Hung Co., Ltd. (‘‘THUFICO’’). In the second review of this order, the Department found QVD, Dong Thap and THUFICO to be a single entity, and because there has been no evidence submitted on the record of this review that calls this determination into question, we continue to find these companies to be part of a single entity. Therefore, we will assign this rate to the companies in the single entity. See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53387 (September 11, 2006). 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: May 13, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–12543 Filed 5–25–16; 8:45 am] PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM 26MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33465-33466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-801]


Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Notice of Court Decisions Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On March 30, 2016, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``the Court'') issued final judgments in Catfish Farmers of 
America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12-00087, sustaining 
the Department of Commerce's (``the Department'') AR7 Remand final 
results.\1\ In the AR7 Remand, the Department recalculated the 
weighted-average dumping margin for QVD Food Co. Ltd. (``QVD'') and 
Vinh Hoan Corporation (``Vinh Hoan'') using revised surrogate values 
for by-products (fish waste, fresh broken meat, and frozen broken 
fillets by-products, and capping the fish oil by-product surrogate 
value).\2\ Because QVD's margin changed, it also becomes the margin for 
those companies not individually examined but receiving a separate 
rate.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court 
Remand, Consol. Court No. 12-00087, Slip Op. 14-146 (CIT December 
18, 2014), dated June 26, 2015, (``AR7 Remand'') available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-146.pdf.
    \2\ See AR7 Remand at 25-29. The weighted-average margin for 
Vinh Hoan remains de minimis. However, as explained in the 
``Background'' section, the Department's recalculation of these 
surrogate values now yields a different weighted-average dumping 
margin for QVD. Thus, consistent with our practice, the Department 
has amended the final results with respect to QVD.
    \3\ These companies include: (1) Anvifish Joint Stock Company; 
(2) Asia Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company; (3) Bien Dong 
Seafood; (4) Binh An Seafood Joint Stock Company; (5) CASEAMEX; (6) 
East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company; (7) Hiep Thanh Seafood 
Joint Stock Company; (8) Southern Fisheries Industries Company Ltd.; 
and (9) Vinh Quang Fisheries Joint-Stock Company (collectively, 
``Separate-Rate Applicants'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 these cases is not in harmony with the 
Department's final results of the antidumping duty administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam'') covering the 
period of review (``POR'') August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010. Thus, 
the Department is amending the final results with respect to the 
weighted-average dumping margins for QVD and the Separate-Rate 
Applicants.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 15039 (March 14, 2012) 
(``AR7 Final Results'') and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective April 11, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, 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-
2243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 14, 2012, the Department issued AR7 Final Results.\5\ Vinh 
Hoan and Petitioners \6\ timely filed complaints with the Court and 
challenged certain aspects of the AR7 Final Results. On December 18, 
2014, the Court remanded the Department's AR7 Final Results and 
instructed the Department to reconsider each of the following issues: 
(1) The significance of presumed qualifiable differences between farm-
gate and wholesale prices with respect to whole live fish; (2) the 
reliability of the Bangladeshi Department of Agricultural Marketing 
(``DAM'') data with respect to whole live fish; (3) the fact that there 
are no quantities associated with the DAM data; (4) surrogate country 
selection in

[[Page 33466]]

light of the totality of the available data, i.e., including the non-
fish factors of production (``FOPs'') surrogate values (``SVs'') 
following reconsideration of the whole live fish issues; and (5) the 
selection of the SVs for fish waste, fish oil, fresh broken meat and 
frozen broken fillets.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Catfish Farmers of America and the following individual U.S. 
catfish processors: America's Catch, Consolidated Catfish Companies, 
LLC dba Country Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Harvest 
Select Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish Company, Pride of the Pond, 
and Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, Inc. (collectively, 
``Petitioners'').
    \7\ See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United States, 
Court No. 12-00087, Slip Op. 14-146 (CIT December 18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 26, 2015, the Department filed the AR7 Remand with the 
Court.\8\ The Department maintained the selection of Bangladesh as the 
primary country. In addition, the Department selected different 
surrogate values for fish waste, fresh broken meat, and frozen broken 
fillets by-products, and capped the fish oil by-product surrogate 
value. In addition, we accounted for all calculation changes as a 
result of the original ministerial error allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See AR7 Remand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, there are calculation changes due to selecting 
different by-product surrogate values. After accounting for all such 
changes and issues, the resulting antidumping margin for the only 
mandatory respondent, QVD, is $0.19 per kilogram. Because QVD's margin 
changed, it would also become the margin for those companies not 
individually examined, but receiving a separate rate. On March 30, 
2016, the Court entered judgments sustaining the AR7 Remand.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United States, 
Court No. 11-00087, Slip. Op. 16-29 (CIT March 30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
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 March 30, 2016, 
judgment sustaining the AR7 Remand constitutes a final decision of the 
Court that is not in harmony with the Department's AR7 Final Results. 
This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement 
of Timken.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is 
amending the AR7 Final Results with respect to QVD and the Separate-
Rate Applicants. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for these 
exporters during the period April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010, as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted average
                                                         dumping margin
                    Exporter name                         (dollars per
                                                           kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QVD Food Company Ltd \10\............................               0.19
Anvifish Joint Stock Company.........................               0.19
Asia Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company..........               0.19
Bien Dong Seafood....................................               0.19
Binh An Seafood Joint Stock Company..................               0.19
CASEAMEX.............................................               0.19
East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company..........               0.19
Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Company...............               0.19
Southern Fisheries Industries Company Ltd............               0.19
Vinh Quang Fisheries Joint-Stock Company.............               0.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of 
liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the 
period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court 
decision. 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 QVD and the Separate-Rate 
Applicants using the assessment rate calculated by the Department in 
the Remand and listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This rate is also applicable to QVD Dong Thap Food Co., 
Ltd. (``Dong Thap'') and Thuan Hung Co., Ltd. (``THUFICO''). In the 
second review of this order, the Department found QVD, Dong Thap and 
THUFICO to be a single entity, and because there has been no 
evidence submitted on the record of this review that calls this 
determination into question, we continue to find these companies to 
be part of a single entity. Therefore, we will assign this rate to 
the companies in the single entity. See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53387 (September 11, 
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Unless the applicable cash deposit rates have been superseded by 
cash deposit rates calculated in an intervening administrative review 
of the AD order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the Department 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash 
deposit for estimated AD duties at the rate noted above for each 
specified exporter and producer combination, for entries of subject 
merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on 
or after April 11, 2016. For Bien Dong, these amended final results 
will result in a change in its cash deposit rate, from $0.03/kg, as 
established in the AR7 Final Results, to $0.19/kg.

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: May 13, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-12543 Filed 5-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P