Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63474-63478 [2018-26653]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63474
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Notices
Cash Deposit Requirements
Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the
Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP
to collect cash deposits of estimated
countervailing duties in the amount
indicated above for the reviewed
companies, with regard to shipments of
subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this
review. For all non-reviewed firms, we
will instruct CBP to collect cash
deposits at the most recent companyspecific or all-others rate applicable to
the company, as appropriate. These cash
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Disclosure and Public Comment
We will disclose to the parties in this
proceeding the calculations performed
in reaching the preliminary results
within five days of the date of
publication of this notice.11 Interested
parties may submit written arguments
(case briefs) on the preliminary results
within 30 days of publication of the
preliminary results, and rebuttal
comments (rebuttal briefs) within five
days after the time limit for filing case
briefs.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be
limited to issues raised in the case
briefs. Parties who submit arguments are
requested to submit with the argument:
(1) Statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities.13
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice.14 Requests
should contain the party’s name,
address, and telephone number, the
number of participants, and a list of the
issues to be discussed. If Commerce
receives a request for a hearing, we will
inform parties of the scheduled date for
the hearing, which will be held at the
main Department of Commerce building
at a time and location to be
determined.15 Parties should confirm by
telephone the date, time, and location of
the hearing.
Parties are reminded that briefs and
hearing requests are to be filed
electronically using ACCESS and
received successfully in their entirety by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
11 See
19 CFR 351.224(b).
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii); 351.309(d)(1); and
19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).
13 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and 351.309(d)(2).
14 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
15 See 19 CFR 351.310.
12 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Dec 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
Unless the deadline is extended
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act, Commerce intends to issue the final
results of this administrative review,
including the results of our analysis of
the issues raised by parties in their
comments, within 120 days after
publication of these preliminary results.
Notification to Interested Parties
These preliminary results of review
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: December 3, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Intent to Rescind the 2016 Administrative
Review, in Part
A. DufEnergy Trading SA (DufEnergy);
Duferco Celik Ticaret Limited (Duferco);
and Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S.
(Ekinciler)
B. Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal
Endustrisi A.S. (Habas)
IV. Non-Selected Rate
V. Scope of the Order
VI. Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Allocation Period
B. Cross-Ownership
1. Colakoglu
2. Icdas
3. Kaptan
C. Denominators
D. Loan Benchmarks and Discount Rates
E. Uncreditworthiness of Icdas Elektrik
VII. Analysis of Programs
A. Programs Preliminarily Determined To
Be Countervailable
1. Deduction From Taxable Income for
Export Revenue
2. Rediscount Program
3. Purchase of Electricity Generated from
Renewable Resources for More Than
Adequate Remuneration (MTAR)—
Renewable Energy Sources Support
Mechanism (YEKDEM)
4. Investment Incentive Certificates
5. Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR
B. Programs Preliminarily Determined To
Not Be Countervailable
1. Payments from the Turkish Employers’
Association of Metal Industries
(MESS)—Social Security Premium
Support
2. Payments from MESS—Occupational
Health and Safety Support
3. Preferential Financing From the
Industrial Development Bank of Turkey
(TSKB)
4. Minimum Wage Support
C. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not
To Confer Countervailable Benefits
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1. Inward Processing Regime (IPR)
2. Regional Investment Incentives
D. Programs Preliminarily Determined To
Provide No Measurable Benefit During
the POR
1. Assistance to Offset Costs Related to
Antidumping/CVD Investigations
2. Reduction and Exemption of Licensing
Fees for Renewable Resource Power
Plants
3. Assistance for Participation in Trade
Fairs Abroad
E. Programs Preliminarily Determined To
Not Be Used
1. Provision of Lignite for LTAR
2. Purchase of Electricity for MTAR—Sales
via Build-Operate-Own, Build-OperateTransfer, and Transfer of Operating
Rights Contracts
3. Research and Development Grant
Program
4. Export Credits, Loans, and Insurance
from Turk Eximbank
5. Large-Scale Investment Incentives
6. Strategic Investment Incentives
7. Incentives for Research & Development
Activities
8. Regional Development Subsidies
9. Comprehensive Investment Incentives
10. Preferential Financing from the Turkish
Development Bank
11. Liquefied Natural Gas for LTAR
VIII. Conclusion
[FR Doc. 2018–26654 Filed 12–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–909]
Certain Steel Nails From the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the
Final Results of the First Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice
of Amended Final Results of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 5, 2018, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or Court) entered final
judgment in The Stanley Works
(Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd.
v. United States, sustaining the final
results of remand redetermination
pertaining to the first administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain steel nails from the People’s
Republic of China (China), covering the
period of review (POR) of January 23,
2008 through July 31, 2009. The
Department of Commerce (Commerce) is
notifying the public that the final
judgment in this case is not in harmony
with Commerce’s final results of the
first administrative review or the
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Notices
amended final results of the first
administrative review, and that,
therefore, Commerce is amending the
final results with respect to its partial
rescission of review and liquidation of
certain entries that received
combination rates, the dumping margin
assigned to the sole mandatory
respondent, and the dumping margin
assigned to the separate rate companies.
DATES: Applicable October 15, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Walker, Office V, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–0413.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the final results of the first
administrative review 1 of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel
nails from China, Commerce calculated
a weighted-average dumping margin of
13.90 percent for the sole cooperating
mandatory respondent, The Stanley
Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems
Co., Ltd. (Stanley), and assigned that
margin to the 22 companies who had
demonstrated their eligibility for a
separate rate (The Separate Rate
Companies).2 Commerce also rescinded
the review with respect to certain
companies that certified that they made
no shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR.3 In the amended final
1 See Certain Steel Nails from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
16379 (March 23, 2011) (Final Results 2008–2009),
and accompanying Issues & Decision Memorandum
(Final Results IDM).
2 The Separate Rate Companies are: (1) Aironware
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; (2) Chiieh Yung Metal Ind.
Corp.; (3) China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co.,
Ltd.; (4) Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co.,
Ltd.; (5) Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd.; (6)
Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co.,
Ltd.; (7) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co.,
Ltd.; (8) Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.; (9) Jisco Corporation (‘‘Jisco’’); (10) Koram
Panagene Co., Ltd. (‘‘Koram Panagene’’); (11)
Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., Ltd.; (12) Qidong
Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; (13)
Qingdao D & L Group Ltd.; (14) Romp (Tianjin)
Hardware Co., Ltd.; (15) Shandong Dinglong Import
& Export Co., Ltd.; (16) Shanghai Jade Shuttle
Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; (17) Shouguang Meiqing
Nail Industry Co., Ltd.; (18) Tianjin Jinchi Metal
Products Co., Ltd.; (19) Tianjin Jinghai County
Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd.; (20) Tianjin
Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.; (21) Wintime
Import & Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan;
and (22) Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory
Co., Ltd.
3 See Final Results 2008–2009, 76 FR at 16380.
The no shipment companies are: (1) Besco
Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; (2)
Certified Products International Inc.; (3) CYM
(Nanjing) Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd.; (4) Dagang
Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (5) Hebei Super
Star Pneumatic Nails Co., Ltd.; (6) Hong Kong Yu
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Dec 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
results of the first administrative
review,4 after correcting two ministerial
errors, Commerce revised Stanley’s
dumping margin to 10.63 percent, again
assigning that rate to the Separate Rate
Companies.
The Final Results 2008–2009 and
Amended Final Results 2008–2009 were
challenged in two separate cases before
the CIT.5 After certain claims were
dismissed, eight distinct claims
remained before the Court. Of those
claims, the Court sustained several in
two prior rulings; 6 other claims were
subjected to voluntary 7 or courtordered 8 remand redeterminations,
before being sustained by the CIT on
October 5, 2018.9 Between the three
total court decisions, and four
cumulative remand redeterminations,
two claims resulted ultimately in
changes to Final Results 2008–2009 and
Amended Final Results 2008–2009, as
explained below.
The court sustained Commerce on
several issues in its two prior rulings.
Briefly, those issues pertained to:
Whether net U.S. prices and normal
value were calculated on the same basis;
the propriety of using certain data to
value electricity; deciding not to apply
facts otherwise available, despite
missing factors of production; electing
not to use intermediate input
methodology to calculate normal value;
and, limiting to two the number of
Xi Co., Ltd.; (7) Senco-Xingya Metal Products
(Taicang) Co., Ltd.; (8) Shanghai Chengkai
Hardware Product Co., Ltd.; (9) Shanghai March
Import & Export Company Ltd.; (10) Shaoxing
Chengye Metal Producting Co., Ltd.; (11) Suzhou
Yaotian Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (12) Tianjin
Chentai International Trading Co., Ltd.; (13) Tianjin
Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (14) Tianjin
Longxing (Group) Huanyu Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.;
(15) Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Xiangtong Intl.
Industry & Trade Corp.; (16) Tianjin Shenyuan Steel
Producting Group Co., Ltd.; (17) Wuhu Shijie
Hardware Co., Ltd.; and (18) Wuxi Chengye Metal
Products Co., Ltd.
4 See Certain Steel Nails from the People’s
Republic of China: Amended Final Results of the
First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76
FR 23279 (April 26, 2011) (Amended Final Results
2008–2009).
5 See The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening
Systems Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Case No. 11–
102; and Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States,
CIT Case No. 11–119. The cases were partially
consolidated into Case No. 11–102 in 2011, then
fully consolidated prior to the Court’s final ruling
on October 5, 2018.
6 See The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening
Systems Co., Ltd. v. United States, 964 F.Supp.2d
1311, 1324 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (Stanley Works I);
and Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 949
F.Supp.2d 1247, 1263–1264 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013)
(Mid Continent).
7 See Stanley Works I at 1317.
8 See Stanley Works I at 1324; Mid Continent at
1279–1280.
9 See The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening
Systems, Co., Ltd. et al v. United States, Court No.
11–102, Slip Op. 18–134 (CIT Oct. 5, 2018) (Stanley
Works II).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63475
mandatory respondents.10 This left two
issues unresolved, discussed below.
Treatment of Certain Entries Under
Certified Products International Inc.’s
Combination Rates
The first issue pertains to the
treatment of entries of subject
merchandise attributed to Certified
Products International Inc. (CPI), a
Taiwanese reseller that does not
produce steel nails but, rather,
purchases them from various
unaffiliated producers in China and
resells them to customers in the United
States. In the first administrative review,
CPI claimed that it had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR;
however, Commerce obtained data from
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) that showed entries under 23
producer/exporter combination rates
which identified CPI as the exporter.
Therefore, Commerce considered
whether CPI or its unaffiliated Chinese
producers were the respondent(s), based
on which party had knowledge that the
merchandise was destined for the U.S.
market. CPI asserted that it had not
exported any subject merchandise
during the review period and should
not, therefore, be considered the
exporter of the entries attributed to it.
The company indicated, rather, that it
had purchased nails for resale from 13
of the 23 unaffiliated producers that had
entered subject merchandise into the
United States during the POR using
CPI’s combination rates. Specifically,
CPI acknowledged that it had sourced
nails from these 13 companies and
stated that these 13 suppliers had
knowledge that the sales were
ultimately destined for the United
States. CPI did not acknowledge having
used the remaining 10 combination
rates during the review period.
In the Final Results 2008–2009, based
on the information from CPI and its
review of the record evidence,
Commerce determined, for the entries
under the combination rates associated
with the 13 producers that had
knowledge that goods sold to CPI were
destined for the United States, to
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties at the applicable separate rate for
the respective producers.11 For the
entries associated with the other 10
combinations that Commerce
determined were misattributed to CPI,
Commerce indicated that it would
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties at the rate in effect at the time of
10 See Stanley Works I at 1324; Mid Continent at
1279–1280.
11 See Final Results IDM at Comment 9. Pursuant
to the Amended Final Results 2008–2009, the
applicable separate rate was 10.63 percent.
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
63476
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Notices
the entry.12 Accordingly, Commerce
rescinded the review with respect to
CPI.13 Commerce’s determination was
challenged in CIT Court No. 11–119.
In Mid Continent, the CIT held that
Commerce’s determination conflicted
with the approach taken on the same
issue in cases involving market
economies, and remanded the issue for
further consideration, particularly in
light of a subsequent rule change 14
which was finalized after the Final
Results 2008–2009 were issued.15
In the Mid Continent First Remand
Redetermination, Commerce found that
the entries attributed to CPI’s
combination rates should be treated in
a manner consistent with the NME
Reseller Policy Statement. Therefore,
Commerce determined to amend its
previous rescission of the administrative
review with respect to CPI, instead
issuing final results of review with
respect to CPI. Specifically, with regard
to entries associated with the 10
combination rates that CPI did not
acknowledge using, Commerce
determined it appropriate to instruct
CBP to liquidate those entries at the
China-wide rate of 118.04 percent,
because record evidence demonstrated
that none of the companies associated
with the 10 combination rates made the
relevant export sales. Commerce
continued to find the entries associated
with the remaining 13 combination rates
entitled to liquidation at the applicable
separate rate for the respective
producers, each of whom had
knowledge of sales to the United States.
Further, because of an intervening
remand redetermination in the separate
first administrative review litigation in
CIT Court No. 11–102, Commerce
determined to apply the revised
separate rate of 15.43 percent to such
entries.16
Several months later, before the Court
issued a decision, Commerce requested
a voluntary remand to address part of its
first remand redetermination, which
was granted.17 In the Mid Continent
Second Remand Redetermination,
12 Id.
13 See
Final Results 2008–2009, 76 FR at 16380.
Non-Market Economy Antidumping
Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76
FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (NME Reseller Policy
Statement).
15 See Mid Continent at 1287–1288.
16 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United States,
Slip Op. 13–115 (March 5, 2014) (Mid Continent
First Remand Redetermination), referring to Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Stanley
Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. et al
v. United States, Slip Op. 13–118 (March 5, 2014)
(Stanley Works First Remand Redetermination).
17 See Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United
States, Court No. 11–119, Order of Sept. 30, 2015.
14 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Dec 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
Commerce sought to clarify the rate or
rates at which entries associated with
three of the producers within the
grouping of 13 combination rates should
be liquidated, because the underlying
administrative review had been
rescinded for those three producers.18
Consequently, Commerce found that the
entries attributed to the three
combination rates associated with
producers for which the underlying
administrative review had been
rescinded should be liquidated at the
rate in effect at the time of entry, not the
separate rate calculated in the review.19
On October 5, 2018, the CIT sustained
Commerce’s remand redeterminations
pertaining to the treatment of entries
under CPI’s combination rates. The CIT
held that, because there was no further
challenge as to which entries would
receive the CPI combination rates, the
Court would not address the issue
further.20 In addition, in response to
challenges by certain companies,
including CPI, the Court sustained
Commerce’s remand redetermination to
apply the revised separate rate of 15.43
percent to entries under combination
rates associated with the 10 producers
that had knowledge that goods sold to
CPI were destined for the United States,
and that remained subject to review.21
Thus, in all respects, Commerce’s
treatment of entries under CPI’s
combination rates was sustained.
Surrogate Financial Statements
The second issue pertains to
Commerce’s selection of financial
statements for surrogate financial ratios.
In the Final Results 2008–2009,
Commerce selected the financial
statements of three companies to use as
the source of surrogate financial ratios
in the underlying review: Bansidhar
Granites Private Limited (Bansidhar),
J&K Wire & Steel Industries (J&K), and
Nasco Steels Private Ltd. (Nasco).
Commerce found that each of these
companies produced steel nails, an
‘‘identical’’ product, and declined to use
the financial statements from a fourth
company, Sundram Fasteners Ltd.
(Sundram), finding that Sundram did
not manufacture steel nails or
18 See Certain Steel Nails from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of
the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
75 FR 43149, 43149–43150 (July 23, 2010).
19 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United States,
Slip Op. 13–115 (Nov. 13, 2015) (Mid Continent
Second Remand Redetermination). The names of
the three producers, which constitute business
proprietary information (BPI), are identified in the
BPI version of the remand redetermination.
20 See Stanley Works II, Slip Op. 18–134 at 7.
21 Id. at 16–18.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
comparable merchandise.22 Commerce’s
determination was challenged in CIT
Court No. 11–102.
During litigation, Commerce
published the final results of the second
administrative review of steel nails from
China.23 In the Second Review Final
Results, Commerce stated that it had
refined its practice with respect to the
determination of whether a company is
a producer of ‘‘identical’’ or
‘‘comparable’’ merchandise within the
context of calculating surrogate values
for manufacturing overhead, general
expenses and profit.24 Given the
modified practice, Commerce sought a
voluntary remand in the first
administrative review litigation, to
reconsider its determination concerning
the selection of financial statements.
The Court granted Commerce’s
request.25
In the Stanley Works First Remand
Redetermination, Commerce continued
to find it appropriate to use the financial
statements of Bansidhar and Nasco, two
of the three companies selected in the
Final Results 2008–2009, to calculate
the surrogate financial ratios. Commerce
found, however, that it was no longer
appropriate to use the financial
statements of the third initially-selected
company, J&K, and instead found it
appropriate to use the financial
statements of another company,
Sundram, that had been rejected
previously. In particular, Commerce
found Sundram to be a producer of
comparable merchandise but excluded
J&K as a producer of non-comparable
merchandise. Commerce also found that
the financial statements of all four
companies showed no receipt of
countervailable subsidies, that the
differences in the companies’ scale of
production did not render the data
unreasonable, that the consumption of
steel wire rod—the main input in the
production of nails—was not
determinative of whether a company is
a producer of comparable merchandise,
and that Sundram’s financial statements
were not aberrational. Based on this
redetermination, Commerce
recalculated the surrogate financial
ratios and the margin for Stanley, and
22 See Final Results 2008–2009 and IDM at
Comment 2.
23 See Certain Steel Nails from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial
Rescission of the Second Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 77 FR 12556 (March 1,
2012) (Second Review Final Results), and
accompanying Issues & Decision Memorandum
(Second Review IDM).
24 See Second Review IDM at Comment 2.
25 See Stanley Works I, 964 F. Supp. 2d at 1342.
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Notices
the Separate Rate Companies, was
revised to 15.43 percent.26
Several months later, before the Court
issued a decision, Commerce requested
a voluntary remand to address part of its
first remand redetermination, which
was granted.27 In the Stanley Works
Second Remand Redetermination,
Commerce corrected its error in using
Nasco’s overhead ratio calculated in the
Final Results 2008–2009, rather than
that used in the Amended Final Results
2008–2009. Commerce relied on this
ratio in a comparison with Sundram’s
overhead ratio to demonstrate why
Sundram’s financial statements are not
aberrational. Commerce found that there
were no ‘‘extraordinary’’ items within
Sundram’s financial statements, and
that inherent variations in overhead
ratios derived from a limited number of
available financial statements cannot
provide a basis for finding one
company’s ratio aberrational.28 Stanley
raised numerous arguments related to
Commerce’s remand redeterminations.
On October 5, 2018, the CIT sustained
Commerce’s remand redeterminations
pertaining to the selection of financial
statements for surrogate financial ratios.
First, the Court affirmed Commerce’s
determination that Commerce did not
have a reason to believe or suspect that
Sundram may have received
countervailable subsidies based on the
record information.29 Second, the Court
upheld Commerce’s revised
methodology for determining that J&K
was not a suitable surrogate financial
company because its activities related
primarily to the production and sale of
non-comparable merchandise, while
finding that Sundram produced
comparable merchandise.30 Third, the
Court held that Commerce’s finding that
Sundram’s overhead ratios were not
aberrational or distortive is supported
by substantial evidence, and could be
included in the averaging of financial
data for surrogate value purposes.31
Accordingly, the Court affirmed
applying the revised margin, 15.43
percent, to Stanley and the Separate
Rate Companies.32
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,33 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,34 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), Commerce must publish a notice
of a court decision that is not ‘‘in
harmony’’ with Commerce’s
determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s
October 5, 2018, final judgment
sustaining issues related to the
treatment of the entries associated with
CPI’s combinations rates, and sustaining
application of the revised margin
calculated for Stanley and the Separate
Rate Companies, constitutes a final
decision of that court that is not in
harmony with the Final Results 2008–
2009 and Amended Final Results 2008–
2009. This notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken. Accordingly,
Commerce will continue the suspension
of liquidation of the subject
merchandise pending a final and
conclusive court decision.
Second Amended Final Results 2008–
2009
Because there is now a final court
decision, Commerce is amending the
Final Results 2008–2009 and Amended
Final Results 2008–2009 with respect to
the rate assigned to Stanley and the 22
Separate Rate Companies listed below.
Accordingly, the revised weightedaverage dumping margins for these
companies are as follows:
Weighted-average
dumping margin
(percent)
Exporter
The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................
Aironware (Shanghai) Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................................................
Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp .......................................................................................................................................................
China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................
Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................................
Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd ...........................................................................................................
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................
Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products 10.63 Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................
Jisco Corporation .........................................................................................................................................................................
Koram Panagene Co., Ltd ...........................................................................................................................................................
Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., Ltd .........................................................................................................................................
Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................
Qingdao D & L Group Ltd ...........................................................................................................................................................
Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd ..............................................................................................................................................
Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................
Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................
Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................
Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd .........................................................................................................................................
Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................
Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................
Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan .....................................................................................................
Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................
26 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co.,
Ltd. et al v. United States, Slip Op. 13–118 (March
5, 2014) (Stanley Works First Remand
Redetermination).
27 See Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening
Systems Co., Ltd. et al v. United States, Court No.
11–102, Order of Feb. 18, 2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Dec 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
28 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co.,
Ltd. et al v. United States, Slip Op. 13–118 (April
16, 2015) (Stanley Works Second Remand
Redetermination).
29 See Stanley Works II, Slip Op. 18–134 at 9–13.
30 Id. at 13–14.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
63477
Sfmt 4703
31 Id.
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
15.43
at 14–15.
at 8 and 18.
33 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
34 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
32 Id.
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
63478
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Notices
Commerce is also amending the
Amended Final Results 2008–2009 with
respect to CPI. In particular, Commerce
is amending its previous rescission of
the administrative review and is no
longer rescinding the review with
respect to CPI but, instead, is issuing
final results of review with respect to
CPI. Moreover, Commerce intends to
issue instructions to CBP to liquidate
entries entered under CPI’s 23
combination rates as follows. For the 10
combination rates that CPI does not
acknowledge using, Commerce intends
to instruct CBP to liquidate entries
under those 10 combination rates at the
China-wide rate of 118.04 percent
because the record evidence
demonstrates that none of the
companies associated with these 10
combination rates made the relevant
export sale. For the 10 combination
rates that CPI does acknowledge using
and for which each producer had
knowledge the merchandise was
destined for the United States,
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to
liquidate entries under those 10
combination rates at the separate rate of
15.43 percent, determined for each
respective producer during the
administrative review. For the
remaining three combination rates,
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to
liquidate such entries at the rate in
effect at the time of entry, because the
three producers at issue were not
included in the final results of the
administrative review.
In the event that the CIT’s ruling is
not appealed, or, if appealed, is upheld
by a final and conclusive court decision,
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties in accordance with
the above.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The cash deposit rates for Stanley and
the 22 Separate Rate Companies have
changed as a result of subsequent
administrative reviews. Therefore, this
amended final results does not change
the later-established cash deposit rates
for these companies.
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: December 3, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018–26653 Filed 12–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Dec 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–469–805]
Stainless Steel Bar From Spain:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2017–
2018
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) preliminarily finds that
Sidenor Aceros Especiales S.L.
(Sidenor), the sole exporter subject to
this administrative review has made
sales of subject merchandise at less than
normal value during the period of
review (POR) March 1, 2017, through
August 8, 2017. We invite interested
parties to comment on these preliminary
results.
DATES: Applicable December 10, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Trenton Duncan or Kabir Archuletta,
AD/CVD Operations, Office V,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5260 or
(202) 482–2593, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
Commerce is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel sar (SSB) from Spain, in
accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).1 The review covers one producer/
exporter of the subject merchandise,
Sidenor. When the review was initiated,
the period of review (POR) was March
1, 2017, through Febrary 28, 2018.
However, on October 3, 2018, as a result
of a five-year (sunset) review, Commerce
revoked the antidumping duty order on
imports of stainless steel bar (SSB) from
Spain, effective August 9, 2017.2 As a
result, the POR was revised to March 1,
2017, through August 8, 2017.3
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order
is SSB. The SSB subject to the order is
currently classifiable under subheadings
1 See Amended Final Determination and
Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar From
Spain, 60 FR 11656 (March 2, 1995) (Order).
2 See Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan,
and Spain: Continuation of Antidumping Duty
Order (India) and Revocation of Antidumping Duty
Orders (Brazil, Japan, and Spain), 83 FR 49910
(October 3, 2018) (Revocation Notice).
3 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00,
7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). While the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description is dispositive. A full
description of the scope of the order is
contained in the Preliminary Decision
Memorandum.4
Methodology
Commerce is conducting this review
in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of
the Act. Constructed export price and
export price were calculated in
accordance with section 772 of the Act.
Normal value was calculated in
accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the
methodology underlying our
conclusions, see Preliminary Decision
Memorandum. The Preliminary
Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is made available to the
public 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 to all
parties in Commerce’s Central Records
Unit, located at room B8024 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Preliminary Decision Memorandum can
be found at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
A list of the topics discussed in the
Preliminary Decision Memorandum is
attached at the Appendix to this notice.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping
margin exists for Sidenor for the period
March 1, 2017, through August 8, 2017.
Producer/exporter
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Sidenor Aceros Especiales, S.L.
1.76
Disclosure
We intend to disclose the calculations
performed to parties in this proceeding
within five days after public
announcement of the preliminary
results.5
4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for
the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from
Spain; 2017–2018,’’ dated concurrently with this
notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).
5 See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63474-63478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26653]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-909]
Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Notice
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final
Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 5, 2018, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or Court) entered final judgment in The Stanley Works
(Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. v. United States, sustaining the
final results of remand redetermination pertaining to the first
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel
nails from the People's Republic of China (China), covering the period
of review (POR) of January 23, 2008 through July 31, 2009. The
Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the
final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final
results of the first administrative review or the
[[Page 63475]]
amended final results of the first administrative review, and that,
therefore, Commerce is amending the final results with respect to its
partial rescission of review and liquidation of certain entries that
received combination rates, the dumping margin assigned to the sole
mandatory respondent, and the dumping margin assigned to the separate
rate companies.
DATES: Applicable October 15, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker, Office V, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-0413.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the final results of the first administrative review \1\ of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from China, Commerce
calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 13.90 percent for the
sole cooperating mandatory respondent, The Stanley Works (Langfang)
Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. (Stanley), and assigned that margin to the
22 companies who had demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate
(The Separate Rate Companies).\2\ Commerce also rescinded the review
with respect to certain companies that certified that they made no
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.\3\ In the amended
final results of the first administrative review,\4\ after correcting
two ministerial errors, Commerce revised Stanley's dumping margin to
10.63 percent, again assigning that rate to the Separate Rate
Companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
76 FR 16379 (March 23, 2011) (Final Results 2008-2009), and
accompanying Issues & Decision Memorandum (Final Results IDM).
\2\ The Separate Rate Companies are: (1) Aironware (Shanghai)
Co., Ltd.; (2) Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp.; (3) China Staple
Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.; (4) Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.; (5) Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd.; (6) Hengshui
Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; (7) Huanghua Jinhai
Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; (8) Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.; (9) Jisco Corporation (``Jisco''); (10) Koram Panagene
Co., Ltd. (``Koram Panagene''); (11) Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co.,
Ltd.; (12) Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; (13)
Qingdao D & L Group Ltd.; (14) Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.;
(15) Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (16) Shanghai Jade
Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; (17) Shouguang Meiqing Nail
Industry Co., Ltd.; (18) Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
(19) Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd.;
(20) Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.; (21) Wintime Import &
Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan; and (22) Zhejiang Gem-Chun
Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd.
\3\ See Final Results 2008-2009, 76 FR at 16380. The no shipment
companies are: (1) Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.;
(2) Certified Products International Inc.; (3) CYM (Nanjing) Nail
Manufacture Co., Ltd.; (4) Dagang Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
(5) Hebei Super Star Pneumatic Nails Co., Ltd.; (6) Hong Kong Yu Xi
Co., Ltd.; (7) Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd.; (8)
Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product Co., Ltd.; (9) Shanghai March
Import & Export Company Ltd.; (10) Shaoxing Chengye Metal Producting
Co., Ltd.; (11) Suzhou Yaotian Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (12)
Tianjin Chentai International Trading Co., Ltd.; (13) Tianjin Jurun
Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (14) Tianjin Longxing (Group) Huanyu Imp.
& Exp. Co., Ltd.; (15) Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Xiangtong Intl.
Industry & Trade Corp.; (16) Tianjin Shenyuan Steel Producting Group
Co., Ltd.; (17) Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd.; and (18) Wuxi
Chengye Metal Products Co., Ltd.
\4\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China:
Amended Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 23279 (April 26, 2011) (Amended Final Results 2008-
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Final Results 2008-2009 and Amended Final Results 2008-2009
were challenged in two separate cases before the CIT.\5\ After certain
claims were dismissed, eight distinct claims remained before the Court.
Of those claims, the Court sustained several in two prior rulings; \6\
other claims were subjected to voluntary \7\ or court-ordered \8\
remand redeterminations, before being sustained by the CIT on October
5, 2018.\9\ Between the three total court decisions, and four
cumulative remand redeterminations, two claims resulted ultimately in
changes to Final Results 2008-2009 and Amended Final Results 2008-2009,
as explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd.
v. United States, CIT Case No. 11-102; and Mid Continent Nail Corp.
v. United States, CIT Case No. 11-119. The cases were partially
consolidated into Case No. 11-102 in 2011, then fully consolidated
prior to the Court's final ruling on October 5, 2018.
\6\ See The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd.
v. United States, 964 F.Supp.2d 1311, 1324 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)
(Stanley Works I); and Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States,
949 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1263-1264 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013) (Mid
Continent).
\7\ See Stanley Works I at 1317.
\8\ See Stanley Works I at 1324; Mid Continent at 1279-1280.
\9\ See The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems, Co.,
Ltd. et al v. United States, Court No. 11-102, Slip Op. 18-134 (CIT
Oct. 5, 2018) (Stanley Works II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The court sustained Commerce on several issues in its two prior
rulings. Briefly, those issues pertained to: Whether net U.S. prices
and normal value were calculated on the same basis; the propriety of
using certain data to value electricity; deciding not to apply facts
otherwise available, despite missing factors of production; electing
not to use intermediate input methodology to calculate normal value;
and, limiting to two the number of mandatory respondents.\10\ This left
two issues unresolved, discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Stanley Works I at 1324; Mid Continent at 1279-1280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment of Certain Entries Under Certified Products International
Inc.'s Combination Rates
The first issue pertains to the treatment of entries of subject
merchandise attributed to Certified Products International Inc. (CPI),
a Taiwanese reseller that does not produce steel nails but, rather,
purchases them from various unaffiliated producers in China and resells
them to customers in the United States. In the first administrative
review, CPI claimed that it had no shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR; however, Commerce obtained data from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) that showed entries under 23 producer/exporter
combination rates which identified CPI as the exporter. Therefore,
Commerce considered whether CPI or its unaffiliated Chinese producers
were the respondent(s), based on which party had knowledge that the
merchandise was destined for the U.S. market. CPI asserted that it had
not exported any subject merchandise during the review period and
should not, therefore, be considered the exporter of the entries
attributed to it. The company indicated, rather, that it had purchased
nails for resale from 13 of the 23 unaffiliated producers that had
entered subject merchandise into the United States during the POR using
CPI's combination rates. Specifically, CPI acknowledged that it had
sourced nails from these 13 companies and stated that these 13
suppliers had knowledge that the sales were ultimately destined for the
United States. CPI did not acknowledge having used the remaining 10
combination rates during the review period.
In the Final Results 2008-2009, based on the information from CPI
and its review of the record evidence, Commerce determined, for the
entries under the combination rates associated with the 13 producers
that had knowledge that goods sold to CPI were destined for the United
States, to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the applicable
separate rate for the respective producers.\11\ For the entries
associated with the other 10 combinations that Commerce determined were
misattributed to CPI, Commerce indicated that it would instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties at the rate in effect at the time of
[[Page 63476]]
the entry.\12\ Accordingly, Commerce rescinded the review with respect
to CPI.\13\ Commerce's determination was challenged in CIT Court No.
11-119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 9. Pursuant to the Amended
Final Results 2008-2009, the applicable separate rate was 10.63
percent.
\12\ Id.
\13\ See Final Results 2008-2009, 76 FR at 16380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Mid Continent, the CIT held that Commerce's determination
conflicted with the approach taken on the same issue in cases involving
market economies, and remanded the issue for further consideration,
particularly in light of a subsequent rule change \14\ which was
finalized after the Final Results 2008-2009 were issued.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (NME Reseller
Policy Statement).
\15\ See Mid Continent at 1287-1288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Mid Continent First Remand Redetermination, Commerce found
that the entries attributed to CPI's combination rates should be
treated in a manner consistent with the NME Reseller Policy Statement.
Therefore, Commerce determined to amend its previous rescission of the
administrative review with respect to CPI, instead issuing final
results of review with respect to CPI. Specifically, with regard to
entries associated with the 10 combination rates that CPI did not
acknowledge using, Commerce determined it appropriate to instruct CBP
to liquidate those entries at the China-wide rate of 118.04 percent,
because record evidence demonstrated that none of the companies
associated with the 10 combination rates made the relevant export
sales. Commerce continued to find the entries associated with the
remaining 13 combination rates entitled to liquidation at the
applicable separate rate for the respective producers, each of whom had
knowledge of sales to the United States. Further, because of an
intervening remand redetermination in the separate first administrative
review litigation in CIT Court No. 11-102, Commerce determined to apply
the revised separate rate of 15.43 percent to such entries.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Mid
Continent Nail Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 13-115 (March
5, 2014) (Mid Continent First Remand Redetermination), referring to
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Stanley Works
(Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. et al v. United States, Slip
Op. 13-118 (March 5, 2014) (Stanley Works First Remand
Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several months later, before the Court issued a decision, Commerce
requested a voluntary remand to address part of its first remand
redetermination, which was granted.\17\ In the Mid Continent Second
Remand Redetermination, Commerce sought to clarify the rate or rates at
which entries associated with three of the producers within the
grouping of 13 combination rates should be liquidated, because the
underlying administrative review had been rescinded for those three
producers.\18\ Consequently, Commerce found that the entries attributed
to the three combination rates associated with producers for which the
underlying administrative review had been rescinded should be
liquidated at the rate in effect at the time of entry, not the separate
rate calculated in the review.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United States, Court
No. 11-119, Order of Sept. 30, 2015.
\18\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of the First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 43149, 43149-43150 (July 23, 2010).
\19\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Mid
Continent Nail Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 13-115 (Nov.
13, 2015) (Mid Continent Second Remand Redetermination). The names
of the three producers, which constitute business proprietary
information (BPI), are identified in the BPI version of the remand
redetermination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 5, 2018, the CIT sustained Commerce's remand
redeterminations pertaining to the treatment of entries under CPI's
combination rates. The CIT held that, because there was no further
challenge as to which entries would receive the CPI combination rates,
the Court would not address the issue further.\20\ In addition, in
response to challenges by certain companies, including CPI, the Court
sustained Commerce's remand redetermination to apply the revised
separate rate of 15.43 percent to entries under combination rates
associated with the 10 producers that had knowledge that goods sold to
CPI were destined for the United States, and that remained subject to
review.\21\ Thus, in all respects, Commerce's treatment of entries
under CPI's combination rates was sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Stanley Works II, Slip Op. 18-134 at 7.
\21\ Id. at 16-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Financial Statements
The second issue pertains to Commerce's selection of financial
statements for surrogate financial ratios. In the Final Results 2008-
2009, Commerce selected the financial statements of three companies to
use as the source of surrogate financial ratios in the underlying
review: Bansidhar Granites Private Limited (Bansidhar), J&K Wire &
Steel Industries (J&K), and Nasco Steels Private Ltd. (Nasco). Commerce
found that each of these companies produced steel nails, an
``identical'' product, and declined to use the financial statements
from a fourth company, Sundram Fasteners Ltd. (Sundram), finding that
Sundram did not manufacture steel nails or comparable merchandise.\22\
Commerce's determination was challenged in CIT Court No. 11-102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Final Results 2008-2009 and IDM at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During litigation, Commerce published the final results of the
second administrative review of steel nails from China.\23\ In the
Second Review Final Results, Commerce stated that it had refined its
practice with respect to the determination of whether a company is a
producer of ``identical'' or ``comparable'' merchandise within the
context of calculating surrogate values for manufacturing overhead,
general expenses and profit.\24\ Given the modified practice, Commerce
sought a voluntary remand in the first administrative review
litigation, to reconsider its determination concerning the selection of
financial statements. The Court granted Commerce's request.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of the Second
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 12556 (March 1, 2012)
(Second Review Final Results), and accompanying Issues & Decision
Memorandum (Second Review IDM).
\24\ See Second Review IDM at Comment 2.
\25\ See Stanley Works I, 964 F. Supp. 2d at 1342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Stanley Works First Remand Redetermination, Commerce
continued to find it appropriate to use the financial statements of
Bansidhar and Nasco, two of the three companies selected in the Final
Results 2008-2009, to calculate the surrogate financial ratios.
Commerce found, however, that it was no longer appropriate to use the
financial statements of the third initially-selected company, J&K, and
instead found it appropriate to use the financial statements of another
company, Sundram, that had been rejected previously. In particular,
Commerce found Sundram to be a producer of comparable merchandise but
excluded J&K as a producer of non-comparable merchandise. Commerce also
found that the financial statements of all four companies showed no
receipt of countervailable subsidies, that the differences in the
companies' scale of production did not render the data unreasonable,
that the consumption of steel wire rod--the main input in the
production of nails--was not determinative of whether a company is a
producer of comparable merchandise, and that Sundram's financial
statements were not aberrational. Based on this redetermination,
Commerce recalculated the surrogate financial ratios and the margin for
Stanley, and
[[Page 63477]]
the Separate Rate Companies, was revised to 15.43 percent.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Stanley
Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. et al v. United States,
Slip Op. 13-118 (March 5, 2014) (Stanley Works First Remand
Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several months later, before the Court issued a decision, Commerce
requested a voluntary remand to address part of its first remand
redetermination, which was granted.\27\ In the Stanley Works Second
Remand Redetermination, Commerce corrected its error in using Nasco's
overhead ratio calculated in the Final Results 2008-2009, rather than
that used in the Amended Final Results 2008-2009. Commerce relied on
this ratio in a comparison with Sundram's overhead ratio to demonstrate
why Sundram's financial statements are not aberrational. Commerce found
that there were no ``extraordinary'' items within Sundram's financial
statements, and that inherent variations in overhead ratios derived
from a limited number of available financial statements cannot provide
a basis for finding one company's ratio aberrational.\28\ Stanley
raised numerous arguments related to Commerce's remand
redeterminations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. et
al v. United States, Court No. 11-102, Order of Feb. 18, 2015.
\28\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Stanley
Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. et al v. United States,
Slip Op. 13-118 (April 16, 2015) (Stanley Works Second Remand
Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 5, 2018, the CIT sustained Commerce's remand
redeterminations pertaining to the selection of financial statements
for surrogate financial ratios. First, the Court affirmed Commerce's
determination that Commerce did not have a reason to believe or suspect
that Sundram may have received countervailable subsidies based on the
record information.\29\ Second, the Court upheld Commerce's revised
methodology for determining that J&K was not a suitable surrogate
financial company because its activities related primarily to the
production and sale of non-comparable merchandise, while finding that
Sundram produced comparable merchandise.\30\ Third, the Court held that
Commerce's finding that Sundram's overhead ratios were not aberrational
or distortive is supported by substantial evidence, and could be
included in the averaging of financial data for surrogate value
purposes.\31\ Accordingly, the Court affirmed applying the revised
margin, 15.43 percent, to Stanley and the Separate Rate Companies.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Stanley Works II, Slip Op. 18-134 at 9-13.
\30\ Id. at 13-14.
\31\ Id. at 14-15.
\32\ Id. at 8 and 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\33\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\34\ 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), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not
``in harmony'' with Commerce's determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The
CIT's October 5, 2018, final judgment sustaining issues related to the
treatment of the entries associated with CPI's combinations rates, and
sustaining application of the revised margin calculated for Stanley and
the Separate Rate Companies, constitutes a final decision of that court
that is not in harmony with the Final Results 2008-2009 and Amended
Final Results 2008-2009. This notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue
the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a
final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\34\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Amended Final Results 2008-2009
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending
the Final Results 2008-2009 and Amended Final Results 2008-2009 with
respect to the rate assigned to Stanley and the 22 Separate Rate
Companies listed below. Accordingly, the revised weighted-average
dumping margins for these companies are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter dumping margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., 15.43
Ltd................................................
Aironware (Shanghai) Co., Ltd....................... 15.43
Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp......................... 15.43
China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.......... 15.43
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd........... 15.43
Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd.............. 15.43
Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd.. 15.43
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.......... 15.43
Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products 10.63 Co., Ltd.. 15.43
Jisco Corporation................................... 15.43
Koram Panagene Co., Ltd............................. 15.43
Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., Ltd.................. 15.43
Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd......... 15.43
Qingdao D & L Group Ltd............................. 15.43
Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.................... 15.43
Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.......... 15.43
Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd....... 15.43
Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd............ 15.43
Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.............. 15.43
Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business 15.43
Co., Ltd...........................................
Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.............. 15.43
Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of 15.43
Zhongshan..........................................
Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd....... 15.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63478]]
Commerce is also amending the Amended Final Results 2008-2009 with
respect to CPI. In particular, Commerce is amending its previous
rescission of the administrative review and is no longer rescinding the
review with respect to CPI but, instead, is issuing final results of
review with respect to CPI. Moreover, Commerce intends to issue
instructions to CBP to liquidate entries entered under CPI's 23
combination rates as follows. For the 10 combination rates that CPI
does not acknowledge using, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to
liquidate entries under those 10 combination rates at the China-wide
rate of 118.04 percent because the record evidence demonstrates that
none of the companies associated with these 10 combination rates made
the relevant export sale. For the 10 combination rates that CPI does
acknowledge using and for which each producer had knowledge the
merchandise was destined for the United States, Commerce intends to
instruct CBP to liquidate entries under those 10 combination rates at
the separate rate of 15.43 percent, determined for each respective
producer during the administrative review. For the remaining three
combination rates, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to liquidate such
entries at the rate in effect at the time of entry, because the three
producers at issue were not included in the final results of the
administrative review.
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if
appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce
will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties in accordance with the
above.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The cash deposit rates for Stanley and the 22 Separate Rate
Companies have changed as a result of subsequent administrative
reviews. Therefore, this amended final results does not change the
later-established cash deposit rates for these companies.
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: December 3, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-26653 Filed 12-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
