Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 85515-85516 [2016-28504]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Notices 85515 LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE [11/1/2016 through 11/21/2016] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for investigation Gulfstream Services, Inc ......... 723 Point Street, Houma, LA 70360. 11/14/2016 Union Packaging, LLC ............ 6250 Baltimore Street, Suite 1, Yeadon, PA 19050. 11/21/2016 Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Miriam Kearse, Lead Program Analyst. [FR Doc. 2016–28453 Filed 11–25–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–WH–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B–47–2016] mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 249— Pensacola, Florida; Authorization of Production Activity; GE Renewables North America, LLC (Wind Turbine Nacelles, Hubs, and Drivetrains); Pensacola, Florida On July 22, 2016, GE Renewables North America, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within Subzone 249A, in Pensacola, Florida. The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (81 FR 49618–49619, July 28, 2016). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, including Section 400.14. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:15 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 Product(s) This firm provides global oilfield services, to include rental and occassional sales of high pressure frack iron and other equipment. The firm manufactures FDA-compliant paperboard packaging for the food service industry, specifically folding cartons. Dated: November 21, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016–28559 Filed 11–25–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–836] Glycine From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–2012 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective October 21, 2016. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying the public that the Court of International Trade’s (the Court’s) final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department’s final results and is therefore rescinding the antidumping administrative review with respect to Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co. Ltd. (Baoding Mantong). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Heeren or Brian Davis, 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) 482–9179 or (202) 482– 7924, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On April 8, 2013, the Department published the Final Results,1 in which it found Baoding Mantong failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances prevented it from filing a timely withdrawal of review request pursuant to the Department’s 1 See Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–2012, 78 FR 20891 (April 8, 2013) (Final Results). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 interpretation of 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).2 On November 3, 2015, the Court remanded the Final Results to the Department holding that the Department overlooked the true purpose of the 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), which was to allow parties an opportunity to know the results of the preceding review.3 In the Remand Redetermination, the Department, under protest, stated that it intended to extend the deadline for withdrawing a request for an administrative review, accept Baoding Mantong’s untimely withdrawal request, and rescind the review with respect to Baoding Mantong.4 On October 11, 2016, the Court affirmed the Remand Redetermination.5 Timken Notice In its decision 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 United States Court of Appeals for 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 Court’s October 11, 2016 final judgment affirming the Remand Redetermination constituted the Court’s final decision which is not in harmony with the Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the 2 See Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3 See Glycine & More v. United States, Court No. 13–00167, Slip Op. 15–124 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 3, 2015). 4 See Final Results of Remand Redetermination Pursuant to Glycine & More v. United States, Court No. 13–00167, Slip Op. 15–124 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 3, 2015), dated February 2, 2016 (Remand Redetermination). 5 See Glycine & More, Inc., v. United States, Court No. 13–00167, Slip Op. 16–96 (Ct. Int’l Trade Oct. 11, 2016). E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM 28NON1 85516 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Notices suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision. Amended Final Results of Review Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the Final Results by accepting Baoding Mantong’s untimely withdrawal request, and rescinding the review with respect to Baoding Mantong. In the event the Court’s ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the rescission of the review with respect to Baoding Mantong. Cash Deposit Requirements Since the Final Results, the Department established a new cash deposit rate for Baoding Mantong. Therefore, the cash deposit rate for Baoding Mantong will remain the company-specific rate established for the subsequent and most recent period for a completed administrative review during which Baoding Mantong was reviewed.6 Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 22, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–28504 Filed 11–25–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–967] Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The period of review mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: 6 See Glycine From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014, 80 FR 62026, 62028 (Oct. 15, 2015). VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:15 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 (POR) is May 1, 2014 through April 30, 2015. These final results cover 46 companies for which an administrative review was initiated and not rescinded. The Department selected the following companies as mandatory respondents: Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., Ltd. and Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. (collectively, Jangho) and Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd., Kong Ah International Company Limited, and Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. (collectively, Guang Ya Group); Guangdong Zhongya Aluminium Company Limited, Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited, and Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. (collectively, Zhongya); and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. (Xinya) (collectively, Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya). The Department finds that Jangho, Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya, and 23 other companies subject to this review did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate, and, accordingly, are to be considered part of the PRC-wide entity. We also determine for these final results that two companies, Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited and Permasteelisa Hong Kong Limited, had no shipments during the POR. Finally, we find that eight companies, including JMA (HK) Company Limited (JMA), continue to be eligible for a separate rate. DATES: Effective November 28, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott or Mark Flessner, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2657 or (202) 482–6312, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department initiated this review on July 1, 2015.1 On June 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.2 At that time, we invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On July 6, 2016, JMA submitted a letter stating that it was officially withdrawing from participation in this 1 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 37588 (July 1, 2015) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in Part; 2014–2015, 81 FR 38664 (June 14, 2016) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying preliminary decision memorandum (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 review and requesting that the Department remove all of JMA’s submissions from the record.3 On July 14, 2016, we received a case brief from the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (Petitioner).4 On July 19, 2016, we received a rebuttal brief from Jangho.5 On October 3, 2016, the Department extended the deadline for the final results of this administrative review until November 21, 2016.6 These final results cover 46 companies for which an administrative review was initiated and not rescinded.7 Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the Order 8 is aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents).9 Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 8481.90.9060, 8481.90.9085, 9031.90.9195, 8424.90.9080, 9405.99.4020, 9031.90.90.95, 7616.10.90.90, 7609.00.00, 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 3 See Letter from JMA to the Department, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from China; Withdrawal from Participation,’’ dated July 6, 2016. 4 See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Case Brief,’’ dated July 14, 2016 (Petitioner’s Case Brief). 5 See Letter from Jangho to the Department, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated July 19, 2016 (Jangho’s Rebuttal Brief). 6 See Memorandum from Chelsey Simonovich to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated October 3, 2016. 7 This administrative review initially covered 175 companies. See Initiation Notice. However, the Department rescinded this review with respect to 129 companies for which all administrative review requests were timely withdrawn. See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 38665. 8 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011) (Order). 9 For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2014–2015 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM 28NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85515-85516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28504]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-836]


Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court 
Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2011-2012

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

DATES: Effective October 21, 2016.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying the 
public that the Court of International Trade's (the Court's) final 
judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final 
results and is therefore rescinding the antidumping administrative 
review with respect to Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co. Ltd. (Baoding 
Mantong).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Heeren or Brian Davis, 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-
9179 or (202) 482-7924, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 8, 2013, the Department published the Final Results,\1\ in 
which it found Baoding Mantong failed to demonstrate that extraordinary 
circumstances prevented it from filing a timely withdrawal of review 
request pursuant to the Department's interpretation of 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1).\2\ On November 3, 2015, the Court remanded the Final 
Results to the Department holding that the Department overlooked the 
true purpose of the 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), which was to allow parties an 
opportunity to know the results of the preceding review.\3\ In the 
Remand Redetermination, the Department, under protest, stated that it 
intended to extend the deadline for withdrawing a request for an 
administrative review, accept Baoding Mantong's untimely withdrawal 
request, and rescind the review with respect to Baoding Mantong.\4\ On 
October 11, 2016, the Court affirmed the Remand Redetermination.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 78 FR 
20891 (April 8, 2013) (Final Results).
    \2\ See Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.
    \3\ See Glycine & More v. United States, Court No. 13-00167, 
Slip Op. 15-124 (Ct. Int'l Trade Nov. 3, 2015).
    \4\ See Final Results of Remand Redetermination Pursuant to 
Glycine & More v. United States, Court No. 13-00167, Slip Op. 15-124 
(Ct. Int'l Trade Nov. 3, 2015), dated February 2, 2016 (Remand 
Redetermination).
    \5\ See Glycine & More, Inc., v. United States, Court No. 13-
00167, Slip Op. 16-96 (Ct. Int'l Trade Oct. 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision 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 United States Court of Appeals for 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 
Court's October 11, 2016 final judgment affirming the Remand 
Redetermination constituted the Court's final decision which is not in 
harmony with the Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment 
of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department 
will continue the

[[Page 85516]]

suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final 
and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Results of Review

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is 
amending the Final Results by accepting Baoding Mantong's untimely 
withdrawal request, and rescinding the review with respect to Baoding 
Mantong.
    In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, 
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will 
instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping 
duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the 
rescission of the review with respect to Baoding Mantong.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Since the Final Results, the Department established a new cash 
deposit rate for Baoding Mantong. Therefore, the cash deposit rate for 
Baoding Mantong will remain the company-specific rate established for 
the subsequent and most recent period for a completed administrative 
review during which Baoding Mantong was reviewed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 
FR 62026, 62028 (Oct. 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 22, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-28504 Filed 11-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

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