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, 52402-52403 [2016-18788]

Download as PDF 52402 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board International Trade Administration [A–570–967; C–570–968] [Order No. 2005] Approval of Subzone Status, Barrett Distribution Centers, Inc., Franklin, Massachusetts Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES WHEREAS, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ‘‘. . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry; WHEREAS, the Board’s regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the establishment of subzones for specific uses; WHEREAS, the Massachusetts Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 27, has made application to the Board for the establishment of a subzone at the facility of Barrett Distribution Centers, Inc., located in Franklin, Massachusetts (FTZ Docket B–9–2016, docketed 02–17–2016); WHEREAS, notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (81 FR 8907, February 23, 2016) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations; and, WHEREAS, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner’s memorandum, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations are satisfied; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby approves subzone status at the facility of Barrett Distribution Centers, Inc., located in Franklin, Massachusetts (Subzone 27O), as described in the application and Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, including Section 400.13. Dated: July 29, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016–18781 Filed 8–5–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:23 Aug 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 July 18, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce’s (Department) final results of redetermination in which the Department determined, under protest, that certain kitchen appliance door handles are not covered by the scope of the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China. DATES: Effective Date: July 28, 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: AGENCY: Background On June 21, 2013, the Department issued a final scope ruling in which it determined that three types of kitchen appliance door handles (Types A, B, and C) imported by Meridian are within the scope of the Orders 1 and did not meet the scope exclusions for ‘‘finished merchandise’’ and ‘‘finished goods kits.’’ 2 Meridian challenged the Department’s final scope ruling at the CIT. On December 7, 2015, the CIT issued an opinion and order in Meridian I sustaining the Department’s findings in the Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling that Meridian’s Type A door handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion) and Type C door handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion packaged as a ‘‘kit’’ with a tool and an instruction 1 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) (the Orders). 2 See ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen Appliance Door Handles,’’ dated June 21, 2013 (Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling) at 12–15. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 manual) are within the scope of the Orders based on a plain reading of the scope language.3 The Court, however, remanded the Department’s determination that Type B door handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion with two plastic end caps fastened on with screws) are within the scope of the Orders. The Court found the Department’s determination to be unsupported by the general scope language.4 The Court further found that, assuming arguendo that Meridian’s Type B door handles were covered by the scope language, the Department erred in finding that the products did not satisfy the ‘‘finished merchandise’’ exclusion.5 On March 23, 2016, the Department issued its Final Results of Redetermination, in which it found, respectfully, under protest, that Meridian’s Type B door handles are not covered by the scope of the Orders because the general scope language did not cover such products. As a result, the Department did not consider whether Meridian’s Type B door handles were subject to the exclusion for ‘‘finished merchandise.’’ 6 On July 18, 2016, in Meridian II the Court sustained the Department’s finding in the Final Results of Redetermination that Meridian’s Type B door handles are not covered by the scope of the Orders.7 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 (CAFC 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 scope ruling and is amending the final scope ruling to find that certain kitchen appliance door handles imported by Meridian LLC (Meridian) are not covered by the scope of the AD and CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China. 3 See Meridian Products LLC v. United States, Court No. 13–00246, Slip Op. 15–135 (Meridian I) at 6–9. 4 Id., at 10–13. 5 Id., at 13–16. 6 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13–00246, Slip Op. 15–135 (CIT December 7, 2015) (Final Results of Redetermination). 7 See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13–00246, Slip Op. 16–71 (Meridian II) at 11. E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM 08AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2016 / Notices Timken Notice DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the Federal Circuit 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 CIT’s July 18, 2016, judgment in Meridian II sustaining the Department’s finding in the Final Results of Redetermination that Meridian’s Type B door handles are not covered by the scope of the Orders constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of Meridian’s Type B door handles at issue pending expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. International Trade Administration Amended Final Scope Ruling Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling, the Department amends its final scope ruling and finds that the scope of the Orders does not cover Meridian’s Type B door handles. The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit rate will be zero percent for Meridian’s Type B door handles. In the event the CIT’s ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Meridian’s Type B door handles 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. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Dated: August 2, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–18788 Filed 8–5–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P [A–570–851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of 2015 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review (NSR) of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The NSR covers merchandise exported by Linyi Yuqiao International Trade Co., Ltd. (Yuqiao) and produced by Linyi City Kangfa Drinkable Co., Ltd. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2015 through July 31, 2015. The Department preliminarily determines that Yuqiao did not make a bona fide sale during the POR. Because any weighted average dumping margin must be based solely on bona fide sales, we are preliminarily rescinding this NSR. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. DATES: Effective August 8, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4475 and (202) 482–0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On October 8, 2015, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC.1 The Department subsequently issued an antidumping duty questionnaire, and supplemental questionnaires, to Yuqiao and received timely responses thereto. The Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal government because of Snowstorm ‘‘Jonas.’’ Thus, all of the deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for 1 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 80 FR 60883 (October 8, 2015) (Initiation Notice). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:23 Aug 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52403 the preliminary results of this review, after the four business-day extension, was April 4, 2016.2 However, on March 28, 2016, the Department extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this NSR by 120 days, until August 2, 2016.3 Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refers to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.4 Methodology The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 2 See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure during Snowstorm Jonas,’’ dated January 27, 2016. 3 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,’’ dated March 28, 2016. 4 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Rescission of the 2015 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China,’’ from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice. E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM 08AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52402-52403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18788]


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

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 July 18, 2016, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (Department) final 
results of redetermination in which the Department determined, under 
protest, that certain kitchen appliance door handles are not covered by 
the scope of the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders 
on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

DATES: Effective Date: July 28, 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: 

Background

    On June 21, 2013, the Department issued a final scope ruling in 
which it determined that three types of kitchen appliance door handles 
(Types A, B, and C) imported by Meridian are within the scope of the 
Orders \1\ and did not meet the scope exclusions for ``finished 
merchandise'' and ``finished goods kits.'' \2\ Meridian challenged the 
Department's final scope ruling at the CIT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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) (the Orders).
    \2\ See ``Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen Appliance Door 
Handles,'' dated June 21, 2013 (Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope 
Ruling) at 12-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 7, 2015, the CIT issued an opinion and order in 
Meridian I sustaining the Department's findings in the Kitchen 
Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling that Meridian's Type A door handles 
(consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion) and Type C door 
handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion packaged as 
a ``kit'' with a tool and an instruction manual) are within the scope 
of the Orders based on a plain reading of the scope language.\3\ The 
Court, however, remanded the Department's determination that Type B 
door handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion with 
two plastic end caps fastened on with screws) are within the scope of 
the Orders. The Court found the Department's determination to be 
unsupported by the general scope language.\4\ The Court further found 
that, assuming arguendo that Meridian's Type B door handles were 
covered by the scope language, the Department erred in finding that the 
products did not satisfy the ``finished merchandise'' exclusion.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Meridian Products LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-
00246, Slip Op. 15-135 (Meridian I) at 6-9.
    \4\ Id., at 10-13.
    \5\ Id., at 13-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 23, 2016, the Department issued its Final Results of 
Redetermination, in which it found, respectfully, under protest, that 
Meridian's Type B door handles are not covered by the scope of the 
Orders because the general scope language did not cover such products. 
As a result, the Department did not consider whether Meridian's Type B 
door handles were subject to the exclusion for ``finished 
merchandise.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-00246, 
Slip Op. 15-135 (CIT December 7, 2015) (Final Results of 
Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 18, 2016, in Meridian II the Court sustained the 
Department's finding in the Final Results of Redetermination that 
Meridian's Type B door handles are not covered by the scope of the 
Orders.\7\ 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 (CAFC 
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 scope ruling and is amending the final scope ruling to find that 
certain kitchen appliance door handles imported by Meridian LLC 
(Meridian) are not covered by the scope of the AD and CVD orders on 
aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-
00246, Slip Op. 16-71 (Meridian II) at 11.

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

[[Page 52403]]

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades, the Federal Circuit 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 CIT's July 18, 2016, 
judgment in Meridian II sustaining the Department's finding in the 
Final Results of Redetermination that Meridian's Type B door handles 
are not covered by the scope of the Orders constitutes a final decision 
of the Court that is not in harmony with the Kitchen Appliance Door 
Handles Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will 
continue the suspension of liquidation of Meridian's Type B door 
handles at issue pending expiration of the period of appeal or, if 
appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the 
Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling, the Department amends its 
final scope ruling and finds that the scope of the Orders does not 
cover Meridian's Type B door handles. The Department will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit rate will be 
zero percent for Meridian's Type B door handles. In the event the CIT's 
ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the Federal Circuit, 
the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Meridian's 
Type B door handles 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: August 2, 2016.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-18788 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.