Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2006-2007, 44587-44588 [2016-16253]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Notices
(36 CFR chapter XII, subchapter B—
Records Management); Departmental
directives and comprehensive records
schedules; NOAA Administrative Order
205–01; and the NMFS Records
Disposition Schedule, Chapter 1500.
SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:
For records at location a.: Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS
Headquarters, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
For records at location b.: Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS Greater
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA
01930–2276.
For records at location c.: Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS Southeast
Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701.
For records at location d.: Office of
Protected Resources, West Coast Region,
Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600
Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. #1, Seattle,
WA 98115.
For records at locations e and f.:
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS
West Coast Region, 501 West Ocean
Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA
90802.
For records at location g.: Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, Pacific
Islands Region, Ford Island Honolulu at
1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176,
Honolulu, HI 96818.
For records at location h.: Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS Alaska
Region, 709 West Ninth Street, Juneau,
AK 99802–1668.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Individuals seeking to determine
whether information about them is
contained in this system should address
written inquiries to the national or
regional Privacy Act Officer:
Privacy Act Officer, NOAA, 1315
East-West Highway, Room 9719, Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Room 13706, Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
Privacy Act Officer, Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930–
2276.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Southeast
Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS West Coast
Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg.
#1, Seattle, WA 98115.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS West Coast
Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard,
Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Pacific
Islands Region, Ford Island Honolulu at
1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176,
Honolulu, HI 96818.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Jul 07, 2016
Jkt 238001
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Alaska
Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska
99802, or delivered to the Federal
Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau,
Alaska, 99802–1668.
Written requests must be signed by
the requesting individual. Requestor
must make the request in writing and
provide his/her name, address, and date
of the request and record sought. All
such requests must comply with the
inquiry provisions of the Department’s
Privacy Act rules which appear at 15
CFR part 4, appendix A.
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
Requests for access to records
maintained in this system of records
should be addressed to the same address
given in the Notification Procedure
section. Note: Complete records for
jointly-owned permits are made
accessible to each owner upon his/her
request.
CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES:
The Department’s rules for access, for
contesting contents, and appealing
initial determinations by the individual
concerned are provided for in 15 CFR
part 4, appendix A.
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Information in this system will be
collected from individuals or entities
applying for a permit or authorization.
EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:
None.
[FR Doc. 2016–16170 Filed 7–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–888]
Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With
Final Results and Notice of Amended
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2006–2007
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 28, 2016, the United
States Court of International Trade (the
CIT or the Court) issued final judgment
in Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co.,
Ltd., v. United States, Court No. 09–
00123, sustaining the Department of
AGENCY:
Frm 00008
Commerce’s (the Department) final
results of the fourth redetermination
pursuant to remand.1 Consistent with
the decision of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(Federal Circuit) 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 of
the antidumping duty administrative
review of floor-standing, metal-top
ironing tables and certain parts thereof
from the People’s Republic of China
covering the period August 1, 2006,
through July 31, 2007, and is amending
the final results with respect to the
weighted-average dumping margin
assigned to Since Hardware
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since
Hardware).2
DATES: Effective Date: May 8, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement
and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Dated: July 5, 2016.
Michael J. Toland,
Department of Commerce, Freedom of
Information/Privacy Act Officer.
PO 00000
44587
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On March 16, 2009, the Department
published its Final Results.3 On March
18, 2009, Since Hardware, an exporter
of the subject merchandise, timely filed
a complaint with the CIT to challenge
certain aspects of the Final Results. The
litigation history of this procedure is
outlined below.
On September 27, 2010, the Court
remanded this matter.4 On February 17,
2011, the Department issued its First
Redetermination, in which it declined
to issue a separate rate to Since
Hardware and continued to assign Since
1 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Floor-Standing Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, Since Hardware (Guangzhou)
Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 09–00123, Slip
Op. 15–15 (CIT February 18, 2015), dated June 18,
2015 (Fourth Redetermination), available at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.htm.
2 See Floor-Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables
and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 11085 (March
16, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (Final Results).
3 Id.
4 Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United
States, Court No. 09–00123, Slip. Op. 10–108
(September 27, 2010) (Since Hardware I).
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
44588
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Notices
Hardware an AFA rate of 157.68
percent.5
Upon consideration of the First
Redetermination, on November 29,
2011, the Court determined that the
Department failed to consider record
information relating to Since
Hardware’s application for a separate
rate.6 In Since Hardware II, the Court
directed the Department to determine
whether Since Hardware was entitled to
a separate rate and, if so, to determine
that rate.7 On May 29, 2012, the
Department issued its Second
Redetermination, in which it
determined that Since Hardware was
entitled to a separate rate.8 However,
because Since Hardware’s questionnaire
responses had otherwise been
determined to be unreliable, the
Department continued to assign an AFA
rate of 157.68 percent to Since
Hardware.9 In the Second
Redetermination, the Department also
reviewed data from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), and
determined that these CBP data
established that selected importers paid
antidumping duties of 157.68 percent.10
Based on this finding, the Department
concluded the 157.68 percent rate was
relevant with regard to Since Hardware.
On May 31, 2013, in Since Hardware
III, the Court sustained the Department’s
determination not to reopen the record
of the proceeding.11 The Court also
determined that the 157.68 percent rate
was reliable.12 However, the Court
found the Department did not
demonstrate the relevance and
commercial reality of the 157.68 percent
AFA rate. On October 31, 2013, the
Department issued its Third
Redetermination, determining that the
157.68 percent rate assigned to Since
Hardware was corroborated to the extent
practicable by the use of CBP data.13
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5 See
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China Since Hardware (Guangzhou)
Co., Ltd.. United States, dated February 17, 2011
(First Redetermination).
6 See Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Court No. 09–00123, Slip Op. 11–146
(November 29, 2011) (Since Hardware II).
7 Id.
8 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China Since Hardware (Guangzhou)
Co., Ltd. v. United States, dated May 29, 2012
(Second Redetermination).
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 See Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Court No., 09–00123, Slip Op. 13–
71 (May 31, 2013) (Since Hardware III).
12 Id.
13 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Jul 07, 2016
Jkt 238001
On February 18, 2015, in Since
Hardware IV, the Court rejected the
analysis concerning corroboration of the
157.68 percent rate assigned to Since
Hardware, as outlined in the Third
Redetermination.14 The Court ordered
the Department to support the rate
assigned to Since Hardware by
demonstrating that the information had
some grounding in commercial reality.15
The Court further determined that the
Department’s analysis of the Customs
data set forth in the Third
Redetermination was insufficient to
corroborate the 157.68 percent AFA rate
assigned to Since Hardware.16 On June
18, 2015, the Department issued its
Fourth Redetermination. In the Fourth
Redetermination, the Department, under
protest, assigned a revised AFA rate of
72.29 percent to Since Hardware to
better address the Court’s concerns of
relevance and commercial reality.17
This 72.29 percent rate was the rate
assigned to Separate Rate companies in
the less-than-fair value investigation.18
On April 28, 2016, the Court
sustained the Department’s Fourth
Redetermination, and entered final
judgment.19
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
the Federal Circuit has 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 not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a
Department determination, and must
suspend liquidation of entries pending
a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The
Court’s April 28, 2016 judgment
sustaining the Fourth Redetermination
constitutes a final decision of the Court
that is not in harmony with the
Department’s Final Results. This notice
is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirement of Timken.
Accordingly, the Department will
continue the suspension of liquidation
of the subject merchandise pending the
expiration of the period of appeal or, if
Republic of China Since Hardware (Guangzhou)
Co., Ltd. v. United States, dated October 31, 2013
(Third Redetermination).
14 See Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Slip Op. 15–15, Court No. 09–00123
(February 18, 2015) (Since Hardware IV).
15 Id.
16 Id., at 8–20.
17 See Fourth Redetermination.
18 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order: Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004).
19 See Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Court No. 09–00123, Slip Op. 16–42
(April 28, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
appealed, pending a final and
conclusive court decision.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision, the Department is amending
the Final Results with respect to the
dumping margin of Since Hardware.
The revised weighted-average dumping
margin for Since Hardware during the
period August 1, 2006, through July 31,
2007, is as follows:
Exporter
Weighted
average
dumping
margin
(percent)
Since Hardware (Guangzhou)
Co., Ltd ...................................
72.29
For Since Hardware, the cash deposit
rate will remain the rate established in
the 2008–2009 Amended Final Results,
a subsequent review, which is 83.83
percent.20
In the event the Court’s ruling is not
appealed, or if appealed and upheld by
the Federal Circuit, the Department will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on entries of the subject
merchandise exported by Since
Hardware using the revised assessment
rate calculated by the Department in the
Fourth Redetermination.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516(A)(e),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 30, 2016.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
& Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–16253 Filed 7–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–016]
Notice of Initiation and Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain
Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck
Tires From the People’s Republic of
China
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
20 See Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables
and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony with Final Results and Notice of
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2008–2009, 80 FR 36507,
(June 25, 2015) (2008–2009 Amended Final
Results).
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44587-44588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16253]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-888]
Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision
Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2006-2007
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 28, 2016, the United States Court of International
Trade (the CIT or the Court) issued final judgment in Since Hardware
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., v. United States, Court No. 09-00123, sustaining
the Department of Commerce's (the Department) final results of the
fourth redetermination pursuant to remand.\1\ Consistent with the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(Federal Circuit) 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 of the
antidumping duty administrative review of floor-standing, metal-top
ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of
China covering the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007, and is
amending the final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping
margin assigned to Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since
Hardware).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Floor-Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China, Since Hardware
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 09-00123, Slip Op.
15-15 (CIT February 18, 2015), dated June 18, 2015 (Fourth
Redetermination), available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.htm.
\2\ See Floor-Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain
Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 11085 (March 16,
2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final
Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: May 8, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 16, 2009, the Department published its Final Results.\3\
On March 18, 2009, Since Hardware, an exporter of the subject
merchandise, timely filed a complaint with the CIT to challenge certain
aspects of the Final Results. The litigation history of this procedure
is outlined below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 27, 2010, the Court remanded this matter.\4\ On
February 17, 2011, the Department issued its First Redetermination, in
which it declined to issue a separate rate to Since Hardware and
continued to assign Since
[[Page 44588]]
Hardware an AFA rate of 157.68 percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court
No. 09-00123, Slip. Op. 10-108 (September 27, 2010) (Since Hardware
I).
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China Since Hardware
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.. United States, dated February 17, 2011 (First
Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon consideration of the First Redetermination, on November 29,
2011, the Court determined that the Department failed to consider
record information relating to Since Hardware's application for a
separate rate.\6\ In Since Hardware II, the Court directed the
Department to determine whether Since Hardware was entitled to a
separate rate and, if so, to determine that rate.\7\ On May 29, 2012,
the Department issued its Second Redetermination, in which it
determined that Since Hardware was entitled to a separate rate.\8\
However, because Since Hardware's questionnaire responses had otherwise
been determined to be unreliable, the Department continued to assign an
AFA rate of 157.68 percent to Since Hardware.\9\ In the Second
Redetermination, the Department also reviewed data from U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP), and determined that these CBP data
established that selected importers paid antidumping duties of 157.68
percent.\10\ Based on this finding, the Department concluded the 157.68
percent rate was relevant with regard to Since Hardware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United States,
Court No. 09-00123, Slip Op. 11-146 (November 29, 2011) (Since
Hardware II).
\7\ Id.
\8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China Since Hardware
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United States, dated May 29, 2012 (Second
Redetermination).
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 31, 2013, in Since Hardware III, the Court sustained the
Department's determination not to reopen the record of the
proceeding.\11\ The Court also determined that the 157.68 percent rate
was reliable.\12\ However, the Court found the Department did not
demonstrate the relevance and commercial reality of the 157.68 percent
AFA rate. On October 31, 2013, the Department issued its Third
Redetermination, determining that the 157.68 percent rate assigned to
Since Hardware was corroborated to the extent practicable by the use of
CBP data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United States,
Court No., 09-00123, Slip Op. 13-71 (May 31, 2013) (Since Hardware
III).
\12\ Id.
\13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China Since Hardware
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United States, dated October 31, 2013
(Third Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 18, 2015, in Since Hardware IV, the Court rejected the
analysis concerning corroboration of the 157.68 percent rate assigned
to Since Hardware, as outlined in the Third Redetermination.\14\ The
Court ordered the Department to support the rate assigned to Since
Hardware by demonstrating that the information had some grounding in
commercial reality.\15\ The Court further determined that the
Department's analysis of the Customs data set forth in the Third
Redetermination was insufficient to corroborate the 157.68 percent AFA
rate assigned to Since Hardware.\16\ On June 18, 2015, the Department
issued its Fourth Redetermination. In the Fourth Redetermination, the
Department, under protest, assigned a revised AFA rate of 72.29 percent
to Since Hardware to better address the Court's concerns of relevance
and commercial reality.\17\ This 72.29 percent rate was the rate
assigned to Separate Rate companies in the less-than-fair value
investigation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United States,
Slip Op. 15-15, Court No. 09-00123 (February 18, 2015) (Since
Hardware IV).
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id., at 8-20.
\17\ See Fourth Redetermination.
\18\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor Standing Metal-Top
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic
of China 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 28, 2016, the Court sustained the Department's Fourth
Redetermination, and entered final judgment.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United States,
Court No. 09-00123, Slip Op. 16-42 (April 28, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades, the Federal Circuit has 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 not ``in harmony'' with a
Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's April 28, 2016
judgment sustaining the Fourth Redetermination constitutes a final
decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's
Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirement of Timken. 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.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is
amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margin of Since
Hardware. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for Since
Hardware during the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007, is as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted
average
Exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd........................ 72.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Since Hardware, the cash deposit rate will remain the rate
established in the 2008-2009 Amended Final Results, a subsequent
review, which is 83.83 percent.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain
Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results and Notice of Amended
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2008-2009,
80 FR 36507, (June 25, 2015) (2008-2009 Amended Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and
upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise
exported by Since Hardware using the revised assessment rate calculated
by the Department in the Fourth Redetermination.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516(A)(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 30, 2016.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-16253 Filed 7-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
