Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 25237-25238 [2019-11397]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2019 / Notices the following firms: Hindustan Inox Limited (Hindustan) and Bhandari Foils & Tubes Ltd (Bhandari).2 Based on these requests, on February 6, 2019, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review covering the period November 1, 2017, through October 31, 2018.3 On February 7, 2019, Hindustan submitted a timely request to withdraw its request for administrative review.4 On February 12, 2019, Bhandari submitted a timely request to withdraw its request for administrative review.5 Rescission of Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties who requested the review withdraw(s) the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Hindustan and Bhandari timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review, and no other party requested a review of these companies. As Hindustan and Bhandari are the only two firms upon which Commerce initiated the instant review, we are rescinding this review in its entirety, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Assessment Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 2 See Hindustan’s letter, ‘‘Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from India: Request for Administrative Review of Anti-Dumping Duty of Hindustan Inox Limited,’’ dated November 30, 2018; and Bhandari’s letter, ‘‘Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from India: Request for Administrative Review of Anti-Dumping Duty of Bhandari Foils & Tubes Ltd.,’’ dated November 30, 2018. 3 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 84 FR 2159 (February 6, 2019) (Initiation Notice). Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018, through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019. See memorandum to the Record from 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, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Partial Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated January 28, 2019. Accordingly, the Initiation Notice was issued once operations resumed. 4 See Hindustan’s letter, ‘‘Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from India: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review of Anti-Dumping Duty of Hindustan Inox Limited.,’’ dated February 7, 2019. 5 See Bhandari’s letter, ‘‘Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from India: Withdrawal of Request for Antidumping Duty Admin Review of Bhandari Foils & Tubes Ltd.,’’ dated February 12, 2019. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 May 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 entries of welded stainless pressure pipe at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, if appropriate. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Notification to Importers AGENCY: This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce’s presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: April 16, 2019. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2019–11399 Filed 5–30–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 25237 International Trade Administration [A–552–818, C–552–819] Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 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) final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce’s final scope ruling. Commerce, therefore, finds that certain zinc anchors imported by OMG, Inc. (OMG), are not within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain steel nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). DATES: Applicable May 24, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482–3813, AD/ CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 5, 2016, OMG, an importer of zinc anchors, filed a request with Commerce for a scope ruling that its zinc anchors should be excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty Orders 1 on certain steel nails from Vietnam.2 OMG described the zinc anchors as a unitary article of commerce consisting of two parts: (1) A zinc alloy body; and (2) a zinc plated steel pin.3 On February 6, 2017, Commerce issued its Final Scope Ruling, in which it determined that OMG’s zinc anchors are unambiguously within the scope of the Orders based upon the plain meaning of the Orders and the description of the zinc anchors contained in OMG’s scope ruling request and supplemental questionnaire 1 See Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 41006 (July 14, 2015); Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 FR 39994 (July 13, 2015) (collectively, the Orders). 2 See ‘‘Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Scope Ruling Request,’’ dated August 5, 2016. 3 Id. at 3, 23. Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1 25238 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2019 / Notices khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES responses.4 Commerce also found that several factors under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1)—particularly the petition, the final report of the International Trade Commission (ITC), and a prior scope ruling—further supported Commerce’s determination that OMG’s zinc anchors fall within the scope of the Orders.5 As a result of the Final Scope Ruling, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue suspension of liquidation of entries of OMG’s zinc anchors.6 OMG challenged the Final Scope Ruling before the CIT, and on May 29, 2018, the CIT remanded Commerce’s scope ruling.7 In its Remand Order, the CIT held that OMG’s zinc anchor is not a ‘‘nail’’ within the plain meaning of the word and is therefore outside the scope of the Orders.8 In determining the definition of a ‘‘nail,’’ the CIT consulted The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged).9 The CIT held that both of these sources unambiguously present ‘‘a ‘single clearly defined or stated meaning {of a nail}’: A slim, usually pointed object used as a fastener designed for impact insertion.’’ 10 The CIT held that although the steel pin fits the common definition of a nail, the zinc anchor as a whole, does not.11 According to the CIT, because OMG’s zinc anchor is a unitary article of commerce, the entire product, not just a component part, must fit the definition of a nail to fall within the scope of the Orders.12 The CIT concluded that because OMG’s zinc anchors are composed of a steel pin and a zinc body, the entire product is not a nail.13 Additionally, the CIT held that because the relevant industry classifies anchors with a steel pin as anchors, not nails, trade usage further supports the conclusion that OMG’s zinc anchors are not nails.14 The CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce for further consideration consistent with the CIT’s 4 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Scope Ruling on OMG, Inc.’s Zinc Anchors (Final Scope Ruling), dated February 6, 2017 at 9–10. 5 Id. at 10. 6 See Message Number 7041303, dated February 10, 2017; see also Message Number 7041301, dated February 10, 2017. 7 See OMG, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 17– 00036, Slip. Op. 18–63 (CIT 2018) (Remand Order). 8 See Remand Order, Slip Op. 18–63 at 9. 9 Id. 10 Id. at 9–10. 11 Id. at 10. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 10–11. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 May 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 opinion.15 The CIT also directed Commerce to issue appropriate instructions to CBP regarding the suspension of liquidation of OMG’s zinc anchors.16 Pursuant to the CIT’s instructions, on remand, under protest, Commerce found that OMG’s zinc anchors do not fall within the scope of the Orders.17 On May 14, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce’s Final Remand Results.18 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,19 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,20 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of 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 May 14, 2019, judgment in this case, sustaining Commerce’s decision in the Final Remand Results that OMG’s zinc anchors fall outside the scope of the Orders, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Final Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of OMG’s zinc anchors pending expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. Amended Final Scope Ruling Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this case, Commerce is amending its Final Scope Ruling and finds that the scope of the Orders does not cover the zinc anchors specified in OMG’s Scope Ruling Request. Commerce will instruct CBP that the cash deposit rate will be zero percent for the zinc anchors subject to OMG’s scope ruling request. In the event that the CIT’s ruling it not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of OMG’s zinc anchors without regard to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, and to lift 15 Id. at 11. 16 Id. 17 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, OMG, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 17–00036, Slip Op. 18–63 (CIT May 29, 2018), dated August 27, 2018 (Final Remand Results). 18 See OMG, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 17– 00036, Slip Op. 19–58, No. 17-00036 (CIT 2019). 19 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 20 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 suspension of liquidation of such entries. Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(e)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 23, 2019. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2019–11397 Filed 5–30–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–552–802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2018–2019 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding, in part, the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) for the period February 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019. DATES: Applicable May 31, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6905. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On May 2, 2019, based on timely requests for review for 107 companies by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (the petitioner),1 185 companies by the American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA),2 and various Vietnamese companies,3 Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the 1 See the Petitioner’s Request for Administrative Review, dated February 27, 2019. 2 See ASPA’s Request for Administrative Review, dated February 27, 2019. 3 See, e.g., VASEP’s submission, ‘‘Request for Administrative Review (02/01/18–01/31/19),’’ dated February 26, 2019; Soc Trang Seafood Seafood Joint Stock Company’s ‘‘Request for Review,’’ dated February 11, 2019. E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25237-25238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11397]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-818, C-552-819]


Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
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) final judgment in this 
case is not in harmony with Commerce's final scope ruling. Commerce, 
therefore, finds that certain zinc anchors imported by OMG, Inc. (OMG), 
are not within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders on certain steel nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(Vietnam).

DATES: Applicable May 24, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482-3813, AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 5, 2016, OMG, an importer of zinc anchors, filed a 
request with Commerce for a scope ruling that its zinc anchors should 
be excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty 
Orders \1\ on certain steel nails from Vietnam.\2\ OMG described the 
zinc anchors as a unitary article of commerce consisting of two parts: 
(1) A zinc alloy body; and (2) a zinc plated steel pin.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 41006 (July 14, 2015); 
Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the 
Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 FR 39994 (July 13, 2015) (collectively, 
the Orders).
    \2\ See ``Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Scope Ruling Request,'' dated August 5, 2016.
    \3\ Id. at 3, 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 6, 2017, Commerce issued its Final Scope Ruling, in 
which it determined that OMG's zinc anchors are unambiguously within 
the scope of the Orders based upon the plain meaning of the Orders and 
the description of the zinc anchors contained in OMG's scope ruling 
request and supplemental questionnaire

[[Page 25238]]

responses.\4\ Commerce also found that several factors under 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(1)--particularly the petition, the final report of the 
International Trade Commission (ITC), and a prior scope ruling--further 
supported Commerce's determination that OMG's zinc anchors fall within 
the scope of the Orders.\5\ As a result of the Final Scope Ruling, 
Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
continue suspension of liquidation of entries of OMG's zinc anchors.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain 
Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Scope 
Ruling on OMG, Inc.'s Zinc Anchors (Final Scope Ruling), dated 
February 6, 2017 at 9-10.
    \5\ Id. at 10.
    \6\ See Message Number 7041303, dated February 10, 2017; see 
also Message Number 7041301, dated February 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMG challenged the Final Scope Ruling before the CIT, and on May 
29, 2018, the CIT remanded Commerce's scope ruling.\7\ In its Remand 
Order, the CIT held that OMG's zinc anchor is not a ``nail'' within the 
plain meaning of the word and is therefore outside the scope of the 
Orders.\8\ In determining the definition of a ``nail,'' the CIT 
consulted The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and 
Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 
(Unabridged).\9\ The CIT held that both of these sources unambiguously 
present ``a `single clearly defined or stated meaning {of a 
nail{time} ': A slim, usually pointed object used as a fastener 
designed for impact insertion.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See OMG, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 17-00036, Slip. 
Op. 18-63 (CIT 2018) (Remand Order).
    \8\ See Remand Order, Slip Op. 18-63 at 9.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT held that although the steel pin fits the common definition 
of a nail, the zinc anchor as a whole, does not.\11\ According to the 
CIT, because OMG's zinc anchor is a unitary article of commerce, the 
entire product, not just a component part, must fit the definition of a 
nail to fall within the scope of the Orders.\12\ The CIT concluded that 
because OMG's zinc anchors are composed of a steel pin and a zinc body, 
the entire product is not a nail.\13\ Additionally, the CIT held that 
because the relevant industry classifies anchors with a steel pin as 
anchors, not nails, trade usage further supports the conclusion that 
OMG's zinc anchors are not nails.\14\ The CIT remanded the Final Scope 
Ruling to Commerce for further consideration consistent with the CIT's 
opinion.\15\ The CIT also directed Commerce to issue appropriate 
instructions to CBP regarding the suspension of liquidation of OMG's 
zinc anchors.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 10.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id. at 10-11.
    \15\ Id. at 11.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the CIT's instructions, on remand, under protest, 
Commerce found that OMG's zinc anchors do not fall within the scope of 
the Orders.\17\ On May 14, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce's Final 
Remand Results.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, OMG, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 17-00036, Slip Op. 18-
63 (CIT May 29, 2018), dated August 27, 2018 (Final Remand Results).
    \18\ See OMG, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 17-00036, Slip 
Op. 19-58, No. 17-00036 (CIT 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\19\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\20\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held 
that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of 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 May 14, 2019, judgment in this case, sustaining Commerce's 
decision in the Final Remand Results that OMG's zinc anchors fall 
outside the scope of the Orders, constitutes a final decision of that 
court that is not in harmony with the Final Scope Ruling. This notice 
is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. 
Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of 
OMG's zinc anchors pending expiration of the period of appeal or, if 
appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this 
case, Commerce is amending its Final Scope Ruling and finds that the 
scope of the Orders does not cover the zinc anchors specified in OMG's 
Scope Ruling Request. Commerce will instruct CBP that the cash deposit 
rate will be zero percent for the zinc anchors subject to OMG's scope 
ruling request. In the event that the CIT's ruling it not appealed, or 
if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to 
liquidate entries of OMG's zinc anchors 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 section 
516A(e)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 23, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
 [FR Doc. 2019-11397 Filed 5-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.