Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 7153-7154 [2018-03375]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2018 / Notices 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.1060, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.1060, 7305.19.5000, 7305.31.4000, 7305.31.6010, 7305.31.6090, 7305.39.1000 and 7305.39.5000. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Appendix sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Dated: February 9, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2018–03304 Filed 2–16–18; 8:45 am] Scope of the Investigations The merchandise covered by these investigations is welded carbon and alloy steel pipe, more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in nominal outside diameter (large diameter welded pipe), regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, grade, end finish, or stenciling. Large diameter welded pipe may be used to transport oil, gas, slurry, steam, or other fluids, liquids, or gases. It may also be used for structural purposes, including, but not limited to, piling. Specifically, not included is large diameter welded pipe produced only to specifications of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) for water and sewage pipe. Large diameter welded pipe used to transport oil, gas, or natural gas liquids is normally produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API) specification 5L. Large diameter welded pipe may also be produced to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards A500, A252, or A53, or other relevant domestic specifications, grades and/or standards. Large diameter welded pipe can be produced to comparable foreign specifications, grades and/or standards or to proprietary specifications, grades and/or standards, or can be non-graded material. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above is covered by the scope of these investigations, whether or not produced according to a particular standard. Subject merchandise also includes large diameter welded pipe that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to coating, painting, notching, beveling, cutting, punching, welding, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope large diameter welded pipe. Excluded from the scope are any products covered by the existing antidumping duty orders on welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea, welded line pipe from the Republic of Turkey, and welded ASTM A–312 stainless steel pipe from Korea, as well as any products covered by the existing countervailing duty order on welded line pipe from Turkey. See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Turkey: Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 FR 75056 (December 1, 2015); Welded ASTM A– 312 Stainless Steel Pipe from South Korea: Antidumping Duty Order, 57 FR 62300 (December 30, 1992); and Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey: Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 75054 (December 1, 2015). The large diameter welded pipe that is subject to these investigations is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.1060, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:55 Feb 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–805] Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: 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: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the Court of International Trade’s (CIT or the Court) final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce’s final scope ruling and is, therefore, finding that certain black, circular tubing produced to ASTM A–513 specifications by Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero) is not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico. DATES: Applicable Date: February 19, 2018. AGENCY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6312. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 27, 2015, Commerce issued the Maquilacero Scope Ruling,1 in which it determined, under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), that 46 products produced by Maquilacero to specification A–513 did not meet the exclusion for ‘‘mechanical tubing’’ in the scope of the Order,2 and were, 1 See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on Certain Black, Circular Tubing Produced to ASTM A–513 Specifications by Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.,’’ dated July 27, 2015 (Maquilacero Scope Ruling). 2 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela and Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Welded PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7153 therefore, within the scope of the Order. In particular, Commerce relied upon a prior scope ruling pertaining to certain mechanical tubing products produced by Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc. (Prolamsa), which was conducted under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2), and which defined ‘‘mechanical tubing’’ as tubing that met a variety of physical, chemical, and mechanical characteristics, and was stenciled.3 Commerce found that Maquilacero’s tubing was not stenciled, and, thus, was not ‘‘mechanical tubing.’’ 4 Maquilacero challenged Commerce’s final scope ruling before the CIT. On August 30, 2017, the Court remanded the Maquilacero Scope Ruling to Commerce.5 Specifically, the Court held that Commerce did not ‘‘properly consider how the mention of stenciling came to be found in the ruling excluding Prolamsa’s pipe from the Order,’’ particularly given that stenciling ‘‘does not change the inherent quality or the intended use of the product.’’ 6 As such, the Court concluded that ‘‘the imposition of a requirement {(i.e., stenciling)} having nothing to do with the physical characteristics of mechanical tubing and that appeared in the Prolamsa Final Scope Ruling by chance { } was unreasonable.’’ 7 Thus, the Court found ‘‘that Commerce’s ruling unlawfully expanded the scope of the Order to include {Maquilacero}’s merchandise,’’ 8 and remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce to ‘‘(1) not impose a stenciling requirement, and (2) find that Maquilacero’s tubing is excluded from the Order based on its analysis found on pages 6–9 of the Final Scope Ruling.’’ 9 In particular, the Court instructed Commerce to ‘‘find plaintiff’s products are excluded from the Order using the same analysis in the Final Scope Ruling and that is found in this opinion.’’ 10 Pursuant to the Court’s instructions, Commerce issued the Final Remand Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992) (the Order). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on Certain Black, Circular Tubing Produced to ASTM A–513 Specifications by Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc.,’’ dated January 12, 2015 (Prolamsa Final Scope Ruling). 4 See Maquilacero Scope Ruling. 5 See Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 17–117, Court No. 15–00287 (CIT 2017). 6 See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17–117, at 29. 7 See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17–117, at 32. 8 Id., at 26. 9 See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17–117, at 32–33. 10 Id., at 33. E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM 20FEN1 7154 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2018 / Notices Results.11 Consistent with the Court’s instructions, Commerce found that the 46 products included in Maquilacero’s scope ruling request are excluded from the Order, because those products meet all physical, chemical, and mechanical properties of mechanical tubing, notwithstanding that the products are not stenciled. On February 9, 2018, the Court sustained Commerce’s Final Remand Results in their entirety.12 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,13 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,14 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce 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 February 9, 2018, judgment in Maquilacero, sustaining Commerce’s decision in the Final Remand Results that the 46 products included in Maquilacero’s scope ruling request are excluded from the Order constitutes a final decision of the court that is not in harmony with the Maquilacero Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the 46 products at issue pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Amended Final Scope Ruling Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the Maquilacero Scope Ruling, Commerce is amending its final scope ruling. Commerce finds that the scope of the Order does not cover the products addressed in the Maquilacero Scope Ruling. Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit rate will be zero percent for the 46 products subject to Maquilacero’s scope ruling request. In the event that the CIT’s ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of the 46 products at issue without regard to antidumping 11 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand in Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Ct. No. 15–00287, November 27, 2017 (Final Remand Results). 12 See Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 18–8, Court No. 15–00287 (CIT 2018). 13 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), at 341. 14 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 20 10) (Diamond Sawblades). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:55 Feb 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 and/or countervailing duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such entries. 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: February 13, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the nonexclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2018–03375 Filed 2–16–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of welded pipe from China, India, Korea, and Turkey. The petitioners are domestic producers of welded pipe.2 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce’s practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the initiation of these investigations is now February 9, 2018.3 On January 23, 24, 29, 30, and February 6, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.4 The DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–122–863, A–484–803, A–533–881, A–570– 077, A–580–897, A–489–833] Large Diameter Welded Pipe From Canada, Greece, India, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Applicable February 9, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Pulongbarit at (202) 482–4031 (Canada); Brittany Bauer at (202) 482– 3860 (Greece); Jaron Moore at (202) 482– 3640 (India); Kabir Archuletta at (202) 482–8024 (the People’s Republic of China (China)); Jesus Saenz at (202) 482–8184 (the Republic of Korea (Korea)); and Rebecca Janz at (202) 482– 2972 (the Republic of Turkey (Turkey)); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: The Petitions On January 17, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of large diameter welded pipe (welded pipe) from Canada, China, Greece, India, Korea, and Turkey, filed in proper form on behalf of American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Berg Steel Pipe Corp., DuraBond Industries, Skyline Steel, and Stupp Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).1 The AD Petitions were 1 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Canada, Greece, India, the People’s PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Turkey: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,’’ dated January 17, 2018 (the Petitions). 2 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2. 3 See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the nonexclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government’’ (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days. 4 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Canada, Greece, India, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports from India, the Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,’’ (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from {Canada}{sic}: Supplemental Questions;’’ ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Supplemental Questions;’’ ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Greece: Supplemental Questions;’’ and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Turkey: Supplemental Questions.’’ All of these documents are dated January 23, 2018. See also Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from India: Supplemental Questions;’’ and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions,’’ both dated January 24, 2018. See also Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 29, 2018. See also ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Greece: Additional Questions;’’ ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from India: Additional Questions;’’ ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Korea: Additional Questions;’’ and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Turkey: Additional Questions.’’ These E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM 20FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7153-7154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03375]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-805]


Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: 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: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public 
that the Court of International Trade's (CIT or the Court) final 
judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final scope 
ruling and is, therefore, finding that certain black, circular tubing 
produced to ASTM A-513 specifications by Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. 
(Maquilacero) is not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on 
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico.

DATES: Applicable Date: February 19, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On July 27, 2015, Commerce issued the Maquilacero Scope Ruling,\1\ 
in which it determined, under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), that 46 products 
produced by Maquilacero to specification A-513 did not meet the 
exclusion for ``mechanical tubing'' in the scope of the Order,\2\ and 
were, therefore, within the scope of the Order. In particular, Commerce 
relied upon a prior scope ruling pertaining to certain mechanical 
tubing products produced by Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de 
C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc. (Prolamsa), which was conducted under 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(2), and which defined ``mechanical tubing'' as tubing that 
met a variety of physical, chemical, and mechanical characteristics, 
and was stenciled.\3\ Commerce found that Maquilacero's tubing was not 
stenciled, and, thus, was not ``mechanical tubing.'' \4\ Maquilacero 
challenged Commerce's final scope ruling before the CIT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Certain Black, 
Circular Tubing Produced to ASTM A-513 Specifications by Maquilacero 
S.A. de C.V.,'' dated July 27, 2015 (Maquilacero Scope Ruling).
    \2\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea 
(Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela and Amendment to Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Welded Non-Alloy Steel 
Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992) (the Order).
    \3\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Certain Black, 
Circular Tubing Produced to ASTM A-513 Specifications by Productos 
Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc.,'' dated 
January 12, 2015 (Prolamsa Final Scope Ruling).
    \4\ See Maquilacero Scope Ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 30, 2017, the Court remanded the Maquilacero Scope Ruling 
to Commerce.\5\ Specifically, the Court held that Commerce did not 
``properly consider how the mention of stenciling came to be found in 
the ruling excluding Prolamsa's pipe from the Order,'' particularly 
given that stenciling ``does not change the inherent quality or the 
intended use of the product.'' \6\ As such, the Court concluded that 
``the imposition of a requirement {(i.e., stenciling){time}  having 
nothing to do with the physical characteristics of mechanical tubing 
and that appeared in the Prolamsa Final Scope Ruling by chance { 
{time}  was unreasonable.'' \7\ Thus, the Court found ``that Commerce's 
ruling unlawfully expanded the scope of the Order to include 
{Maquilacero{time} 's merchandise,'' \8\ and remanded the Final Scope 
Ruling to Commerce to ``(1) not impose a stenciling requirement, and 
(2) find that Maquilacero's tubing is excluded from the Order based on 
its analysis found on pages 6-9 of the Final Scope Ruling.'' \9\ In 
particular, the Court instructed Commerce to ``find plaintiff's 
products are excluded from the Order using the same analysis in the 
Final Scope Ruling and that is found in this opinion.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 17-
117, Court No. 15-00287 (CIT 2017).
    \6\ See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17-117, at 29.
    \7\ See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17-117, at 32.
    \8\ Id., at 26.
    \9\ See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17-117, at 32-33.
    \10\ Id., at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Court's instructions, Commerce issued the Final 
Remand

[[Page 7154]]

Results.\11\ Consistent with the Court's instructions, Commerce found 
that the 46 products included in Maquilacero's scope ruling request are 
excluded from the Order, because those products meet all physical, 
chemical, and mechanical properties of mechanical tubing, 
notwithstanding that the products are not stenciled. On February 9, 
2018, the Court sustained Commerce's Final Remand Results in their 
entirety.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand in 
Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Ct. No. 15-00287, 
November 27, 2017 (Final Remand Results).
    \12\ See Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 18-
8, Court No. 15-00287 (CIT 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\13\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\14\ the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the 
Act, Commerce 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 February 9, 2018, judgment in Maquilacero, sustaining Commerce's 
decision in the Final Remand Results that the 46 products included in 
Maquilacero's scope ruling request are excluded from the Order 
constitutes a final decision of the court that is not in harmony with 
the Maquilacero Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment 
of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will 
continue the suspension of liquidation of the 46 products at issue 
pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, pending a 
final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken), at 341.
    \14\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 20 10) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the 
Maquilacero Scope Ruling, Commerce is amending its final scope ruling. 
Commerce finds that the scope of the Order does not cover the products 
addressed in the Maquilacero Scope Ruling. Commerce will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit rate will be 
zero percent for the 46 products subject to Maquilacero's scope ruling 
request. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if 
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate 
entries of the 46 products at issue without regard to antidumping and/
or countervailing duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such 
entries.

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: February 13, 2018.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing 
the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-03375 Filed 2-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P