Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results, 4769-4770 [2019-02585]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 19, 2019 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–831]
Fresh Garlic From the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With Final
Results of Administrative Review and
Notice of Amended Final Results
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 30, 2019, the
United States Court of International
Trade (the CIT) entered final judgment
sustaining the Department of
Commerce’s (Commerce) second
remand results pertaining to the
fifteenth administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic
from the People’s Republic of China
(China) for Shenzhen Xinboda
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda).
Commerce is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in
harmony with the final results and
partial rescission of the fifteenth
antidumping duty administrative
review, and that Commerce has
amended the dumping margin found for
Xinboda.
DATES: Applicable February 19, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VII, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–4956.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
On June 27, 2011, Commerce
published the Final Results pertaining
to mandatory respondent Xinboda,
along with other exporters.1 In the Final
Results, Commerce selected India as the
primary surrogate country.2 Pursuant to
section 773(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), and
applying our intermediate input
methodology, Commerce used prices
published for Azadpur in India to value
whole raw garlic bulbs (bulbs).
Commerce calculated a rate of $0.06 per
kilogram for Xinboda, and the separate
rate respondents.3
1 See
Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part,
of the 2008–2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 37321 (June 27, 2011) (Final Results)
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (IDM).
2 See IDM.
3 See Final Results, 76 FR at 37326.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Feb 15, 2019
Jkt 247001
On April 16, 2014, the CIT remanded
for Commerce to: (1) Consider
information indicating the Azadpur
bulb prices might involve a higher level
of processing that potentially doublecounted processing of factors of
production (FOPs) reported by Xinboda
that Commerce included in normal
value (NV); (2) consider information
indicating that prices for grade A bulbs
already reflect prices for grade S.A.
bulbs; (3) explain why Tata Tea’s
financial statements are useable, in light
of information Xinboda provided
allegedly indicating that Tata Tea
received countervailable subsidies, and
why Garlico Industries Limited’s
(Garlico) statements are not useable; (4)
explain further the intermediate labor
methodology or revise the surrogate
value (SV) for labor; and (5) explain
why zeroing is permissible in nonmarket economy (NME) reviews.4
On August 4, 2014, Commerce filed
the First Remand Results, revising
Xinboda’s rate from $0.06 per kilogram
to $0.02 per kilogram.5 In accordance
with the First Remand Opinion,
Commerce adjusted its NV calculation
by removing the costs of self-produced
and consumed green leaf from the
surrogate manufacturing overhead ratio
from Tata Tea. In addition, we revised
our SV for labor, in compliance with
Commerce’s current surrogate labor rate
methodology. We revised our margin
calculation to exclude the inland freight
expense of transportation expenses for
raw garlic bulbs from Indian growers to
the Azadpur market.6 Commerce
continued to rely on grade A and grade
S.A. bulb data from the Azadpur market
data, explaining that those prices were
‘‘more similar’’ to the input being
valued and that the Researcher
Declaration submitted by Xinboda was
unreliable and did not undermine the
Azadpur prices to the point of being
unusable. Commerce also continued to
rely on Tata Tea’s financial statements
in order to value the surrogate financial
ratios and gave a more fulsome
explanation of Commerce’s practice in
interpreting the ‘‘reason to believe or
suspect’’ standard regarding whether
financial statements contain evidence of
countervailable subsidies. Finally, we
continued to utilize our zeroing
methodology.
4 See Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Slip Op. 14–45, Court No. 11–00267
(CIT 2014) (First Remand Opinion).
5 See ‘‘Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Remand, Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd.
v. United States, Court of International Trade No.
11–00267, Slip Op. 14–45,’’ dated August 14, 2014
(First Remand Results).
6 Id. at 6.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4769
On December 15, 2017, the CIT
sustained Commerce’s application of its
zeroing methodology, and the SV for
labor in the First Remand Results.7
However, the Court again remanded the
First Remand Results for Commerce to
reconsider the SV for whole raw garlic
bulbs and the selection of surrogate
financial statements.8 Per the Court’s
instructions, Commerce recalculated
Xinboda’s rate using only the
contemporaneous grade A bulb prices
from the Azadpur data. In addition, as
directed by the Court, Commerce
adjusted the surrogate bulb value in
order to reflect the expenses associated
with intermediaries and further
processing of the garlic bulb. Moreover,
Commerce continued to apply financial
ratios derived from the 2010
unconsolidated financial statements of
Tata Tea, after further explaining our
practice regarding the ‘‘reason to believe
or suspect’’ standard for countervailable
subsidies in financial statements.9 The
calculations performed in the Second
Remand Results resulted in a weightedaverage dumping margin of $0.00 per
kilogram for Xinboda.
On January 30, 2019, the CIT
sustained Commerce’s Second Remand
Results with respect to the fifteenth
administrative review of the AD order
on fresh garlic from China.10
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,11 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,12 the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of
the Act, Commerce must publish a
notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in
harmony’’ with a Commerce
determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s
January 30, 2019, final judgment
sustaining the Second Remand Results
constitutes a final decision of the Court
that is not in harmony with Commerce’s
7 See Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co. v. United
States, CIT Slip Op. 17–166, Consol. Ct. No. 11–
00267 (December 15, 2017) (Second Remand
Opinion).
8 See Second Remand Opinion at 4.
9 See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Remand: Fresh Garlic
from the People’s Republic of China, Shenzhen
Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States, U.S.
Court of International Trade, Consol. Ct. No. 11–
00267, Slip Op. 17–166,’’ dated April 24, 2018
(Second Remand Results).
10 See Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. v.
United States, CIT Slip Op. 19–16, Consol. Ct. No.
11–00267 (January 30, 2019) (Slip Op. 19–16).
11 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337,
341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
12 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM
19FEN1
4770
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 19, 2019 / Notices
Final Results.13 This notice is published
in fulfillment of the Timken publication
requirements.
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 Xinboda. Based
on the Second Remand Results, as
affirmed by the CIT, the revised
dumping margin for Xinboda, for the
period of review of November 1, 2008,
through October 31, 2009, is $0.00 per
kilogram.
Accordingly, Commerce will continue
the suspension of liquidation of the
subject merchandise pending the
expiration of the period of appeal or, if
appealed, pending a final and
conclusive court decision. In the event
the CIT’s ruling is not appealed or, if
appealed, upheld on appeal, Commerce
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to liquidate the unliquidated
entries of subject merchandise based on
the revised dumping margin above.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Commerce will not update the cash
deposit requirements for Xinboda as it
has later-determined rates from
subsequent administrative reviews.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 11, 2019.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–02585 Filed 2–15–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Environmental Technologies Trade
Advisory Committee (ETTAC) Public
Meeting
International Trade
Administration, DOC.
ACTION: Notice of an Open Meeting of a
Federal Advisory Committee.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
schedule and proposed agenda of a
meeting of the Environmental
Technologies Trade Advisory
Committee (ETTAC).
DATES: The teleconference is scheduled
for Thursday, March 7, 2019, at 2:30
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
13 See
Final Results.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:46 Feb 15, 2019
Jkt 247001
deadline for members of the public to
register or to submit written comments
for dissemination prior to the
teleconference is 5:00 p.m. EDT on
Thursday, February 28, 2019. The
deadline for members of the public to
request auxiliary aids is 5:00 p.m. EDT
on Tuesday, February 26, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place
via teleconference. For logistical
reasons, all participants are required to
register in advance by the date specified
above. Please contact Ms. Amy Kreps at
the contact information below to register
and obtain call-in information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Amy Kreps, Office of Energy &
Environmental Industries (OEEI),
International Trade Administration,
Room 28018, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone:
202–482–3835; Fax: 202–482–5665;
email: amy.kreps@trade.gov)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
teleconference will take place on March
7, 2019, from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
EDT. The general meeting is open to the
public, and time will be permitted for
public comment from 4:15–4:30 p.m.
EDT. Members of the public seeking to
attend the teleconference are required to
register in advance. Those interested in
attending must provide notification by
Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 5:00
p.m. EDT, via the contact information
provided above. This meeting is
physically accessible to people with
disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids
should be directed to OEEI at (202) 482–
3835 no less than one week prior to the
teleconference. Requests received after
this date will be accepted, but it may
not be possible to accommodate them.
Written comments concerning ETTAC
affairs are welcome any time before or
after the meeting. To be considered
during the meeting, written comments
must be received by Tuesday, February
26, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. EDT to ensure
transmission to the members before the
teleconference. Minutes will be
available within 30 days of this meeting.
Topic to be considered: The agenda
for the March 7, 2019, meeting includes
providing the newly re-chartered
committee with briefings on Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
requirements and an overview of
ETTAC operations. OEEI will make the
final agenda available to the public one
week prior to the meeting. Please email
amy.kreps@trade.gov or contact 202–
482–3835 for a copy.
Background: The ETTAC is mandated
by Section 2313(c) of the Export
Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended,
15 U.S.C. 4728(c), to advise the
Environmental Trade Working Group of
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee, through the Secretary of
Commerce, on the development and
administration of programs to expand
U.S. exports of environmental
technologies, goods, services, and
products. The ETTAC was most recently
re-chartered until August 2020.
Dated: February 13, 2019.
Man Cho,
Deputy Director, Office of Energy and
Environmental Industries.
[FR Doc. 2019–02674 Filed 2–15–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–874]
Certain Steel Nails From the Republic
of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2016–
2017
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) determines that Daejin
Steel Co. (Daejin), Koram Inc. (Koram),
and Korea Wire Co. Ltd. (Kowire) made
sales of certain steel nails (steel nails)
from the Republic of Korea (Korea) at
less than normal value during the
period of review (POR), July 1, 2016,
through June 30, 2017.
DATES: Applicable February 19, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maliha Khan (Daejin), Trisha Tran
(Koram), or Robert Galantucci (Kowire),
AD/CVD Operations, Office IV,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0895,
(202) 482–4852, or (202) 482–2923,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On July 12, 2018, Commerce
published the Preliminary Results of the
2016–2017 antidumping duty
administrative review of steel nails from
Korea.1 Commerce conducted
verification of Koram and Kowire from
July 23, 2018 through August 2, 2018.
We invited interested parties to
1 See Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of
Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016–
2017, 83 FR 32265 (July 12, 2018) and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum
(Preliminary Results).
E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM
19FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4769-4770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02585]
[[Page 4769]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-831]
Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and
Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 30, 2019, the United States Court of International
Trade (the CIT) entered final judgment sustaining the Department of
Commerce's (Commerce) second remand results pertaining to the fifteenth
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic
from the People's Republic of China (China) for Shenzhen Xinboda
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda). Commerce is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final
results and partial rescission of the fifteenth antidumping duty
administrative review, and that Commerce has amended the dumping margin
found for Xinboda.
DATES: Applicable February 19, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4956.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 27, 2011, Commerce published the Final Results pertaining
to mandatory respondent Xinboda, along with other exporters.\1\ In the
Final Results, Commerce selected India as the primary surrogate
country.\2\ Pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), and applying our intermediate input methodology,
Commerce used prices published for Azadpur in India to value whole raw
garlic bulbs (bulbs). Commerce calculated a rate of $0.06 per kilogram
for Xinboda, and the separate rate respondents.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the 2008-2009 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 37321 (June 27, 2011) (Final
Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ See IDM.
\3\ See Final Results, 76 FR at 37326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2014, the CIT remanded for Commerce to: (1) Consider
information indicating the Azadpur bulb prices might involve a higher
level of processing that potentially double-counted processing of
factors of production (FOPs) reported by Xinboda that Commerce included
in normal value (NV); (2) consider information indicating that prices
for grade A bulbs already reflect prices for grade S.A. bulbs; (3)
explain why Tata Tea's financial statements are useable, in light of
information Xinboda provided allegedly indicating that Tata Tea
received countervailable subsidies, and why Garlico Industries
Limited's (Garlico) statements are not useable; (4) explain further the
intermediate labor methodology or revise the surrogate value (SV) for
labor; and (5) explain why zeroing is permissible in non-market economy
(NME) reviews.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States,
Slip Op. 14-45, Court No. 11-00267 (CIT 2014) (First Remand
Opinion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 4, 2014, Commerce filed the First Remand Results,
revising Xinboda's rate from $0.06 per kilogram to $0.02 per
kilogram.\5\ In accordance with the First Remand Opinion, Commerce
adjusted its NV calculation by removing the costs of self-produced and
consumed green leaf from the surrogate manufacturing overhead ratio
from Tata Tea. In addition, we revised our SV for labor, in compliance
with Commerce's current surrogate labor rate methodology. We revised
our margin calculation to exclude the inland freight expense of
transportation expenses for raw garlic bulbs from Indian growers to the
Azadpur market.\6\ Commerce continued to rely on grade A and grade S.A.
bulb data from the Azadpur market data, explaining that those prices
were ``more similar'' to the input being valued and that the Researcher
Declaration submitted by Xinboda was unreliable and did not undermine
the Azadpur prices to the point of being unusable. Commerce also
continued to rely on Tata Tea's financial statements in order to value
the surrogate financial ratios and gave a more fulsome explanation of
Commerce's practice in interpreting the ``reason to believe or
suspect'' standard regarding whether financial statements contain
evidence of countervailable subsidies. Finally, we continued to utilize
our zeroing methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand,
Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court of
International Trade No. 11-00267, Slip Op. 14-45,'' dated August 14,
2014 (First Remand Results).
\6\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 15, 2017, the CIT sustained Commerce's application of
its zeroing methodology, and the SV for labor in the First Remand
Results.\7\ However, the Court again remanded the First Remand Results
for Commerce to reconsider the SV for whole raw garlic bulbs and the
selection of surrogate financial statements.\8\ Per the Court's
instructions, Commerce recalculated Xinboda's rate using only the
contemporaneous grade A bulb prices from the Azadpur data. In addition,
as directed by the Court, Commerce adjusted the surrogate bulb value in
order to reflect the expenses associated with intermediaries and
further processing of the garlic bulb. Moreover, Commerce continued to
apply financial ratios derived from the 2010 unconsolidated financial
statements of Tata Tea, after further explaining our practice regarding
the ``reason to believe or suspect'' standard for countervailable
subsidies in financial statements.\9\ The calculations performed in the
Second Remand Results resulted in a weighted-average dumping margin of
$0.00 per kilogram for Xinboda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co. v. United States, CIT
Slip Op. 17-166, Consol. Ct. No. 11-00267 (December 15, 2017)
(Second Remand Opinion).
\8\ See Second Remand Opinion at 4.
\9\ See Memorandum, ``Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Remand: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China,
Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States, U.S. Court
of International Trade, Consol. Ct. No. 11-00267, Slip Op. 17-166,''
dated April 24, 2018 (Second Remand Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 30, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce's Second Remand
Results with respect to the fifteenth administrative review of the AD
order on fresh garlic from China.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States,
CIT Slip Op. 19-16, Consol. Ct. No. 11-00267 (January 30, 2019)
(Slip Op. 19-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\11\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\12\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that,
pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice
of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's January 30, 2019, final
judgment sustaining the Second Remand Results constitutes a final
decision of the Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's
[[Page 4770]]
Final Results.\13\ This notice is published in fulfillment of the
Timken publication requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
\12\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
\13\ See Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Xinboda. Based on the Second Remand Results, as affirmed by the CIT,
the revised dumping margin for Xinboda, for the period of review of
November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009, is $0.00 per kilogram.
Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation
of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of
appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld
on appeal, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
liquidate the unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the
revised dumping margin above.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Commerce will not update the cash deposit requirements for Xinboda
as it has later-determined rates from subsequent administrative
reviews.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 11, 2019.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-02585 Filed 2-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P