Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results, 4846-4848 [2017-00882]

Download as PDF 4846 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2017 / Notices instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weightedaverage dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that currently have separate a rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the exporter received that separate rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, 92.84 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Notifications to Importers This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notifications to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 10, 2017. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Discussion of the Issues a. Surrogate Value for Truck Freight b. The Department Should Grant Yantai CMC a Separate Rate c. The Denial of Separate Rate Status for Yantai CMC Is Not Supported by Record Evidence d. The Rate Assigned to Yantai CMC e. The Department’s Separate Rates Test and the Rate Assigned to Yantai CMC Are Inconsistent With the WTO Agreements f. The Department Should Continue the NSR and Calculate a Margin for the Final 5. Conclusion [FR Doc. 2017–00827 Filed 1–13–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–816] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained in full the Department of Commerce’s (the Department) second remand results pertaining to the fifteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel flat products from the Republic of Korea covering the period of August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the administrative review, and that the Department is amending the final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union), Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO), and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu). AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DATES: Effective December 27, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3692. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 15, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued the Final Results.1 Four parties contested the Department’s findings in the Final Results. Three of the four plaintiffs, Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu, are Korean producers/exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel flat products (CORE). Union and HYSCO were mandatory respondents in the fifteenth administrative review; Dongbu was an unexamined respondent subject to the non-selected rate. The remaining plaintiff, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), was a petitioner in the fifteenth administrative review. In the Final Results, the Department assigned weighted-average dumping margins of 14.01 percent to Union and 3.29 percent to HYSCO.2 As an unexamined respondent, Dongbu received the margin of 8.65 percent that the Department assigned to all unexamined respondents, which the Department calculated as a simple average of the non-de-minimis margins of the examined respondents.3 On May 25, 2012, the CIT issued its opinion in Union Steel I, which remanded various aspects of the Final Results to the Department.4 In particular, the Court made the following holdings: (1) the Department’s decision to use financial data pertaining only to the 2008 fiscal year of Union’s parent company in determining Union’s interest expense ratio cannot be upheld on judicial review; (2) in response to defendant’s request for a voluntary remand, the court will order the Department to reconsider the ‘‘quarterly cost methodology to apply the ‘‘recovery-of-costs’’ test to homemarket sales of Union and HYSCO and the ‘‘indexing’’ methodology wherever used in the Final Results; (3) on remand, the Department must reconsider the use in the Final Results of the quarterly-cost and 1 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Fifteenth Administrative Review, 75 FR 13490 (March 22, 2010) (Final Results) and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Final Decision Memorandum). 2 See Final Results, 75 FR at 13491. 3 Id. 4 See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 837 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (Union Steel I). E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM 17JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2017 / Notices indexing methodologies for various other purposes; (4) the Department must reconsider its decision to depart from its normal method for selecting comparison months of normal value sales; (5) in response to defendant’s request for a voluntary remand, the court will order the Department to reconsider its decision to compare laminated CORE and non-laminated, painted CORE as ‘‘identical’’ merchandise; (6) in response to defendant’s request for a voluntary remand, the court will order that Commerce reconsider the use of the zeroing methodology in the fifteenth review; (7) no relief is available on Dongbu’s claim seeking an individually-determined dumping margin; and (8) in response to the defendant’s request for a voluntary remand, remand is appropriate on U.S. Steel’s challenge to the date of sale used for certain sales by HYSCO through a U.S. affiliate. The court determines, in addition, that any modifications to the weighted-average dumping margins of Union and HYSCO resulting from this remand shall be reflected in the rate applied to Dongbu.5 Pursuant to Union Steel I, the Department issued the First Remand Redetermination,6 in which it addressed the Court’s holdings and revised Union’s margin from 14.01 percent to 9.85 percent and HYSCO’s margin from 3.29 percent to 1.46 percent.7 Again, based on a simple average of the margins calculated for Union and HYSCO, the Department changed Dongbu’s margin from 8.65 percent to 5.56 percent.8 Following consideration of comments submitted to the CIT on the First Remand Redetermination and an oral argument, the Court issued its decision in Union Steel II, which affirmed in part, and remanded in part to the Department, various aspects of the First Remand Redetermination.9 In particular, the Court remanded for the Department to address: sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES (1) the decision to make a major input adjustment when calculating Union’s interest expense ratio; (2) the application of the modified ‘‘quarterly cost’’ methodology wherever used in the normal value calculations for Hyundai HYSCO . . . including the difference-in-merchandise (‘‘DIFMER’’) adjustments and constructed value (‘‘CV’’) determinations; (3) the application of the modified ‘‘quarterly cost’’ methodology for all aspects of the normal value calculations for Union except the revised sales-below-cost and recovery-ofcosts tests; (4) the decision to depart from the normal method for selecting a comparison month when determining antidumping 5 Id., at 1310, 1337–38. 6 See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (Sept. 24, 2012) (First Remand Redetermination). 7 See First Remand Redetermination at 67. 8 Id. 9 See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (Union Steel II). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 margins for Union and HYSCO; and (5) the decision to depart from the normal method by selecting the date of shipment, rather than the date of invoice, as the date of sale for certain sales that HYSCO made through a U.S. affiliate, Hyundai HYSCO USA, Inc.10 The Court also instructed the Department to ‘‘recalculate the margin for Dongbu based on the redetermined margins for Union and HYSCO.’’ 11 In response to Union Steel II, the Department issued the Second Remand Redetermination in which it reconsidered the remanded issues and revised the 9.85 percent margin it previously determined for Union to 9.83 percent.12 The Department revised HYSCO’s margin from 1.46 percent to 5.56 percent.13 Once again assigning Dongbu a margin based on a simple average of the Union and HYSCO margins, the Department changed Dongbu’s margin from 5.56 percent to 7.70 percent.14 In Union Steel III, the CIT sustained in full the Department’s Second Remand Redetermination.15 In particular, the CIT sustained the Department’s decision to depart from its 90/60-day window period regulation and to instead limit comparisons of individual U.S. sales to home market sales that occurred during the same quarter, based on the fact that the Department had relied on its quarterly cost methodology because there were significantly changing costs throughout the review period.16 Furthermore, the Court sustained the Department’s determination to rely on invoice date instead of shipment date for determining the date of sale for HYSCO’s U.S. sales in the Second Remand Redetermination, because certain evidence in HYSCO’s questionnaire responses indicated that price remained subject to change after shipment.17 Finally, the Court sustained four other aspects of the Second Remand Redetermination, which were not challenged by any party: (1) The Department’s calculation of Union Steel’s interest expense ratio; (2) the Department’s modification to its costrecovery test as applied to HYSCO on remand, in which the Department discontinued relying on surrogate costs and relied instead on HYSCO’s actual 10 Id., at 1300, 1327–28. 11 Id. 12 See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, at 44 (Aug. 1, 2014) (Second Remand Redetermination). 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, Ct. Int’l Trade Slip Op. 16–117 (Dec. 15, 2016) (Union Steel III), at 2, 26. 16 Id., at 16–20. 17 Id., at 11–13. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4847 costs from the quarters in which there was production during the period of review; (3) the Department’s decision to use unindexed quarterly cost data to calculate CV and DIFMER adjustments; and (4) the Department’s use of a surrogate-based method in calculating CV and DIFMER adjustments, which was different than the method used when applying its cost-recovery test to HYSCO in the Department’s First Remand Redetermination, which the Court had found objectionable in Union Steel II.18 Thus, in Union Steel III, the Court affirmed the following dumping margins as calculated by the Department in the Second Remand Redetermination: 9.83 percent for Union, 5.56 percent for HYSCO, and 7.70 percent for Dongbu. Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,19 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,20 the 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 CIT’s December 15, 2016, final judgement sustaining the Second Remand 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 requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision. Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margins calculated for Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu. Based on the Second Remand Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT in Union Steel III, the revised dumping margins for Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu are 9.83 percent, 5.56 percent, and 7.70 percent, respectively. In the event that the CIT’s rulings are not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on 18 Id., at 5–11. Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 20 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 19 See E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM 17JAN1 4848 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2017 / Notices unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margins listed above. Cash Deposit Requirements The Department notified CBP to discontinue the collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after February 14, 2012, due to the revocation of the order.21 Therefore, no cash deposit requirements will be imposed as a result of these amended final results. Notice 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: January 10, 2017. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, [FR Doc. 2017–00882 Filed 1–13–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–869] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Final Negative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) determines that imports of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR tires) from India are not being, or are not likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Determination.’’ The finding for whether critical circumstances exist for producers and exporters subject to the all-others rate is moot because the antidumping duty margins for Alliance Tires Private Limited (ATC) and Balkrishna Industries Limited (BKT) are zero. The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. DATES: Effective January 17, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: 21 See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832, 16833 (March 19, 2013). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6412, or (202) 482–4852, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 19, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. 1 In the Preliminary Determination, we postponed the final determination until no later than 135 days after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document, and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope Comments In accordance with the Preliminary Determination, the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.4 In 1 See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires: Negative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 55431 (August 19, 2016) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Preliminary Determination, 81 FR at 55432. 3 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance ‘‘Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,’’ dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). 4 See Preliminary Determination, 81 FR at 55432, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Scope Comments.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the Preliminary Determination, we did not modify the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.5 No interested party submitted scope comments in case or rebuttal briefs. Therefore, the scope of this investigation remains unchanged for this final determination.6 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are OTR tires from India. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I of this notice. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice at Appendix II. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in August and September 2016, we conducted sales and cost verifications of the questionnaire responses submitted by ATC and BKT. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by both respondents. Changes to the Dumping Margin Calculations Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received, pre-verification findings, and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the dumping margin calculations for each respondent, ATC and BKT. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Use of Adverse Facts Available The Department has relied on partial adverse facts available under sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.7 A full discussion of our decision to rely on adverse facts available is presented in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5 Id.; see also Certain New Pneumatic Off-theRoad Tires from India and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 81 FR 7073 (February 10, 2016) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 6 The Department has added two additional subheadings from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to the list included for convenience and customs purposes since the Preliminary Determination. No revisions were made to the written description of the subject merchandise. 7 See Sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM 17JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4846-4848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00882]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-816]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products From the Republic 
of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results 
and Notice of Amended Final Results

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

SUMMARY: The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained in 
full the Department of Commerce's (the Department) second remand 
results pertaining to the fifteenth administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel flat 
products from the Republic of Korea covering the period of August 1, 
2007, through July 31, 2008. The Department is notifying the public 
that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final 
results of the administrative review, and that the Department is 
amending the final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping 
margins assigned to Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union), 
Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO), and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu).

DATES: Effective December 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3692.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 15, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
issued the Final Results.\1\ Four parties contested the Department's 
findings in the Final Results. Three of the four plaintiffs, Union, 
HYSCO, and Dongbu, are Korean producers/exporters of certain corrosion-
resistant steel flat products (CORE). Union and HYSCO were mandatory 
respondents in the fifteenth administrative review; Dongbu was an 
unexamined respondent subject to the non-selected rate. The remaining 
plaintiff, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), was a 
petitioner in the fifteenth administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Fifteenth 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 13490 (March 22, 2010) (Final Results) 
and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Final Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Final Results, the Department assigned weighted-average 
dumping margins of 14.01 percent to Union and 3.29 percent to HYSCO.\2\ 
As an unexamined respondent, Dongbu received the margin of 8.65 percent 
that the Department assigned to all unexamined respondents, which the 
Department calculated as a simple average of the non-de-minimis margins 
of the examined respondents.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Final Results, 75 FR at 13491.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 25, 2012, the CIT issued its opinion in Union Steel I, which 
remanded various aspects of the Final Results to the Department.\4\ In 
particular, the Court made the following holdings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 837 F. Supp. 2d 
1307 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012) (Union Steel I).

(1) the Department's decision to use financial data pertaining only 
to the 2008 fiscal year of Union's parent company in determining 
Union's interest expense ratio cannot be upheld on judicial review; 
(2) in response to defendant's request for a voluntary remand, the 
court will order the Department to reconsider the ``quarterly cost 
methodology to apply the ``recovery-of-costs'' test to home-market 
sales of Union and HYSCO and the ``indexing'' methodology wherever 
used in the Final Results; (3) on remand, the Department must 
reconsider the use in the Final Results of the quarterly-cost and

[[Page 4847]]

indexing methodologies for various other purposes; (4) the 
Department must reconsider its decision to depart from its normal 
method for selecting comparison months of normal value sales; (5) in 
response to defendant's request for a voluntary remand, the court 
will order the Department to reconsider its decision to compare 
laminated CORE and non-laminated, painted CORE as ``identical'' 
merchandise; (6) in response to defendant's request for a voluntary 
remand, the court will order that Commerce reconsider the use of the 
zeroing methodology in the fifteenth review; (7) no relief is 
available on Dongbu's claim seeking an individually-determined 
dumping margin; and (8) in response to the defendant's request for a 
voluntary remand, remand is appropriate on U.S. Steel's challenge to 
the date of sale used for certain sales by HYSCO through a U.S. 
affiliate. The court determines, in addition, that any modifications 
to the weighted-average dumping margins of Union and HYSCO resulting 
from this remand shall be reflected in the rate applied to 
Dongbu.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id., at 1310, 1337-38.

    Pursuant to Union Steel I, the Department issued the First Remand 
Redetermination,\6\ in which it addressed the Court's holdings and 
revised Union's margin from 14.01 percent to 9.85 percent and HYSCO's 
margin from 3.29 percent to 1.46 percent.\7\ Again, based on a simple 
average of the margins calculated for Union and HYSCO, the Department 
changed Dongbu's margin from 8.65 percent to 5.56 percent.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (Sept. 24, 
2012) (First Remand Redetermination).
    \7\ See First Remand Redetermination at 67.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following consideration of comments submitted to the CIT on the 
First Remand Redetermination and an oral argument, the Court issued its 
decision in Union Steel II, which affirmed in part, and remanded in 
part to the Department, various aspects of the First Remand 
Redetermination.\9\ In particular, the Court remanded for the 
Department to address:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 968 F. Supp. 2d 
1297 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014) (Union Steel II).

(1) the decision to make a major input adjustment when calculating 
Union's interest expense ratio; (2) the application of the modified 
``quarterly cost'' methodology wherever used in the normal value 
calculations for Hyundai HYSCO . . . including the difference-in-
merchandise (``DIFMER'') adjustments and constructed value (``CV'') 
determinations; (3) the application of the modified ``quarterly 
cost'' methodology for all aspects of the normal value calculations 
for Union except the revised sales-below-cost and recovery-of-costs 
tests; (4) the decision to depart from the normal method for 
selecting a comparison month when determining antidumping margins 
for Union and HYSCO; and (5) the decision to depart from the normal 
method by selecting the date of shipment, rather than the date of 
invoice, as the date of sale for certain sales that HYSCO made 
through a U.S. affiliate, Hyundai HYSCO USA, Inc.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id., at 1300, 1327-28.

The Court also instructed the Department to ``recalculate the margin 
for Dongbu based on the redetermined margins for Union and HYSCO.'' 
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Union Steel II, the Department issued the Second 
Remand Redetermination in which it reconsidered the remanded issues and 
revised the 9.85 percent margin it previously determined for Union to 
9.83 percent.\12\ The Department revised HYSCO's margin from 1.46 
percent to 5.56 percent.\13\ Once again assigning Dongbu a margin based 
on a simple average of the Union and HYSCO margins, the Department 
changed Dongbu's margin from 5.56 percent to 7.70 percent.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, at 44 
(Aug. 1, 2014) (Second Remand Redetermination).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Union Steel III, the CIT sustained in full the Department's 
Second Remand Redetermination.\15\ In particular, the CIT sustained the 
Department's decision to depart from its 90/60-day window period 
regulation and to instead limit comparisons of individual U.S. sales to 
home market sales that occurred during the same quarter, based on the 
fact that the Department had relied on its quarterly cost methodology 
because there were significantly changing costs throughout the review 
period.\16\ Furthermore, the Court sustained the Department's 
determination to rely on invoice date instead of shipment date for 
determining the date of sale for HYSCO's U.S. sales in the Second 
Remand Redetermination, because certain evidence in HYSCO's 
questionnaire responses indicated that price remained subject to change 
after shipment.\17\ Finally, the Court sustained four other aspects of 
the Second Remand Redetermination, which were not challenged by any 
party: (1) The Department's calculation of Union Steel's interest 
expense ratio; (2) the Department's modification to its cost-recovery 
test as applied to HYSCO on remand, in which the Department 
discontinued relying on surrogate costs and relied instead on HYSCO's 
actual costs from the quarters in which there was production during the 
period of review; (3) the Department's decision to use unindexed 
quarterly cost data to calculate CV and DIFMER adjustments; and (4) the 
Department's use of a surrogate-based method in calculating CV and 
DIFMER adjustments, which was different than the method used when 
applying its cost-recovery test to HYSCO in the Department's First 
Remand Redetermination, which the Court had found objectionable in 
Union Steel II.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, Ct. Int'l Trade 
Slip Op. 16-117 (Dec. 15, 2016) (Union Steel III), at 2, 26.
    \16\ Id., at 16-20.
    \17\ Id., at 11-13.
    \18\ Id., at 5-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in Union Steel III, the Court affirmed the following dumping 
margins as calculated by the Department in the Second Remand 
Redetermination: 9.83 percent for Union, 5.56 percent for HYSCO, and 
7.70 percent for Dongbu.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\19\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\20\ the 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 
CIT's December 15, 2016, final judgement sustaining the Second Remand 
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 requirements of Timken. 
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation 
of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court 
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
    \20\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the 
Final Results with respect to the dumping margins calculated for Union, 
HYSCO, and Dongbu. Based on the Second Remand Redetermination, as 
affirmed by the CIT in Union Steel III, the revised dumping margins for 
Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu are 9.83 percent, 5.56 percent, and 7.70 
percent, respectively.
    In the event that the CIT's rulings are not appealed or, if 
appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the 
Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
assess antidumping duties on

[[Page 4848]]

unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised 
dumping margins listed above.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department notified CBP to discontinue the collection of cash 
deposits on entries of the subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn 
from warehouse, on or after February 14, 2012, due to the revocation of 
the order.\21\ Therefore, no cash deposit requirements will be imposed 
as a result of these amended final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832, 16833 (March 19, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice 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: January 10, 2017.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance,
[FR Doc. 2017-00882 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

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