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, 28460-28461 [2019-12992]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
28460
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2019 / Notices
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
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, is
amending its final scope ruling and now
finds that certain zinc and nylon
anchors imported by Midwest Fastener
Corp. (Midwest Fastener) 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 June 13, 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:
AGENCY:
Background
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
On November 9, 2016, Midwest
Fastener, an importer of zinc and nylon
anchors, filed a request with Commerce
for a scope ruling that its zinc and nylon
anchors should be excluded from the
scope of the antidumping and
countervailing duty Orders 1 on certain
steel nails from Vietnam.2 Midwest
Fastener described the zinc and nylon
anchors as a unitary article of commerce
consisting of two parts: (1) A zinc alloy
or nylon body; and (2) a zinc plated
steel pin.3
On May 17, 2017, Commerce issued
its Final Scope Ruling, in which it
determined that Midwest Fastener’s
zinc and nylon anchors are
1 See 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); Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 80
FR 41006 (July 14, 2015) (collectively, the Orders).
2 See Midwest Fastener’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Steel
Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Midwest Fastener Scope Request,’’ dated November
9, 2016.
3 Id. at 2, 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jun 18, 2019
Jkt 247001
unambiguously within the scope of the
Orders based upon the plain meaning of
the Orders and the description of the
zinc and nylon anchors contained in
Midwest Fastener’s scope ruling request
and supplemental questionnaire
responses.4 Commerce also found that
several factors under 19 CFR
351.225(k)(1)—particularly the petition,
the final determination of the
International Trade Commission (ITC)
issued in connection with the
underlying investigation, and prior
scope rulings—further supported
Commerce’s determination that
Midwest Fastener’s zinc and nylon
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 Midwest Fastener’s zinc and
nylon anchors.6
Midwest Fastener challenged the
Final Scope Ruling before the CIT, and
on October 1, 2018, the CIT remanded
Commerce’s scope ruling.7 In its
Remand Order, the CIT held that
Midwest Fastener’s zinc and nylon
anchors, as unitary articles of
commerce, are not a ‘‘nail’’ within the
plain meaning of the word and are,
therefore, outside the scope of the
Orders.8 The CIT relied on dictionary
definitions to determine the definition
of ‘‘nail’’ and concluded that, because
Midwest Fastener’s zinc and nylon
anchors are 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.9 The CIT held that the entire
zinc or nylon anchor is not a nail
‘‘constructed of two or more pieces’’
pursuant to the Orders.10 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
Midwest Fastener’s zinc and nylon
anchors are not nails.11 In support of its
conclusion, the CIT cited its decision in
OMG, Inc. v. United States, in which it
found a product with a zinc anchor
4 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders on Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Scope Ruling on
Midwest Fastener Corp.’s Zinc and Nylon Anchors
(Final Scope Ruling), dated May 17, 2017 at 11–13.
5 Id. at 13.
6 See Message Number 7153303, dated June 2,
2017; Message Number 7153302, dated June 2,
2017.
7 See Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United States,
Court No. 17–00131, Slip Op. 18–132 (CIT 2018)
(Remand Order).
8 See Remand Order, Slip Op. 18–132 at 14.
9 Id. at 11.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 12–13.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
body and a steel pin outside the scope
of the Orders.12
The CIT remanded the Final Scope
Ruling to Commerce for further
consideration consistent with the CIT’s
opinion.13 The CIT also directed
Commerce to issue appropriate
instructions to CBP regarding the
suspension of liquidation of Midwest
Fastener’s zinc and nylon anchors.14
Pursuant to the CIT’s instructions, on
remand, under protest, Commerce found
that Midwest Fastener’s zinc and nylon
anchors do not fall within the scope of
the Orders.15 On June 3, 2019, the CIT
sustained Commerce’s Final Remand
Results.16
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,17 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,18 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
June 3, 2019 judgment in this case,
sustaining Commerce’s decision in the
Final Remand Results that Midwest
Fastener’s zinc and nylon 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 Midwest Fastener’s
zinc and nylon 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 and
nylon anchors specified in Midwest
12 Id. at 13, citing OMG, Inc. v. United States,
Court No. 17–00036, Slip Op. 18–63 (CIT 2018) at
10–11.
13 See Remand Order, Slip Op. 18–132 at 14.
14 Id.
15 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United
States, Court No. 17–00131, Slip Op. 18–132 (CIT
October 1, 2018), dated December 21, 2018 (Final
Remand Results).
16 See Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United States,
Court No. 17–00131, Slip Op. 19–66 (CIT 2019).
17 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337,
341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
18 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2019 / Notices
Fastener’s Scope Ruling Request.
Commerce will instruct CBP that the
cash deposit rate will be zero percent for
the zinc and nylon anchors subject to
Midwest Fastener’s scope ruling
request. In the event that the CIT’s
ruling is not appealed, or if appealed,
upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will
instruct CBP to liquidate entries of
Midwest Fastener’s zinc and nylon
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: June 10, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–12992 Filed 6–18–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–580–884]
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products
From the Republic of Korea: Final
Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 2016
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) determines that Hyundai
Steel Co., Ltd. (Hyundai Steel) and
POSCO, producers and/or exporters of
certain hot-rolled steel flat products
(hot-rolled steel) from the Republic of
Korea (Korea), received countervailable
subsidies during the period of review
(POR), August 12, 2016 through
December 31, 2016.
DATES: Applicable June 19, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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) 482–2593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Background
On November 6, 2018, Commerce
published the Preliminary Results of
this administrative review.1 On
1 See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from
the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2016,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jun 18, 2019
Jkt 247001
28461
December 18, 2018, Commerce
postponed the final results of review by
58 days until May 3, 2019.2 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, 2019.3
Accordingly, the revised deadline for
these final results is June 12, 2019.
On March 4, 2019, Nucor Corporation
(Nucor) submitted pre-verification
comments on the record of this
administrative review.4 Between March
7, 2019 and March 12, 2019, we
conducted verifications of the
questionnaire responses submitted by
Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (Hyundai Steel)
and POSCO. We released verification
reports on April 9, 2019.5
On April 19, 2019, Nucor, POSCO,
and Hyundai Steel submitted timely
case briefs.6 Each also submitted timely
rebuttal briefs on April 24, 2019.7
Commerce conducted this review in
accordance with section 751 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users
at https://access.trade.gov and is
available to all parties in the Central
Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main
Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the internet at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
The signed and electronic versions of
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
are identical in content.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
is certain hot-rolled steel flat products.
For a complete description of the scope
of the order, see attachment to the Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
Companies Not Selected for Individual
Review
For the companies not selected for
individual review, because the rates
calculated for Hyundai Steel and
POSCO were above de minimis and not
based entirely on facts available, we
applied a subsidy rate based on a
weighted-average of the subsidy rates
calculated for Hyundai Steel and
POSCO using publicly ranged sales data
submitted by the respondents. This is
consistent with the methodology that
we would use in an investigation to
establish the all-others rate, pursuant to
section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in interested parties’
case briefs are addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum. The issues
are identified in the Appendix to this
notice. The Issues and Decision
83 FR 55517 (November 6, 2018) (Preliminary
Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum
(Preliminary Decision Memorandum).
2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Extension of Deadline for
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review,’’ dated December 18, 2018.
3 See Memorandum to the Record from Gary
Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Partial
Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated
January 28, 2019. All deadlines in this segment of
the proceeding have been extended by 40 days.
4 See Nucor’s Letter, ‘‘Pre-Verification
Comments,’’ dated March 4, 2019.
5 See Memoranda, ‘‘Verification of the
Questionnaire Reponses of Hyundai Steel
Company’’ (April 9, 2019) (Hyundai Steel VR);
‘‘Verification of Questionnaire Responses of
POSCO, POSCO Daewoo Corporation, POSCO
Chemtech, and POSCO M-Tech’’ (April 9, 2019).
6 See Nucor’s Case Brief, ‘‘Case Brief,’’ dated
April 19, 2019; see also POSCO’s Case Brief,
‘‘POSCO’s Letter,’’ dated April 19, 2019; Hyundai
Steel’s Case Brief, ‘‘Hyundai Steel Case Brief,’’
dated April 19, 2019.
7 See Nucor’s Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Rebuttal Brief,’’
dated April 24, 2019; POSCO’s Rebuttal Brief,
‘‘POSCO’s Letter,’’ dated April 24, 2019; Hyundai
Steel’s Rebuttal Brief, ‘‘Hyundai Steel Rebuttal
Brief,’’ dated April 24, 2019.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on the comments received from
the interested parties and information
received from Hyundai Steel after the
Preliminary Results, we made changes
to the net subsidy rates calculated for
the mandatory respondents. For a
discussion of these issues, see the Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
Final Results of Administrative Review
We determine that, for the period of
August 12, 2016 through December 31,
2016, the following total estimated net
countervailable subsidy rates exist:
Company
POSCO .................................
Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd .........
DCE Inc ................................
Dong Chuel America Inc ......
Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd ..........
Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd
Hyewon Sni Corporation
(H.S.I.) ...............................
Soon Hong Trading Co., Ltd
Sung-A Steel Co., Ltd ..........
Subsidy rate
(percent ad
valorem)
0.55
0.58
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
Disclosure
Commerce intends to disclose the
calculations performed for these final
results of review within five days of the
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28460-28461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12992]
[[Page 28460]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, is amending its final scope ruling and now finds that
certain zinc and nylon anchors imported by Midwest Fastener Corp.
(Midwest Fastener) 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 June 13, 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 November 9, 2016, Midwest Fastener, an importer of zinc and
nylon anchors, filed a request with Commerce for a scope ruling that
its zinc and nylon anchors should be excluded from the scope of the
antidumping and countervailing duty Orders \1\ on certain steel nails
from Vietnam.\2\ Midwest Fastener described the zinc and nylon anchors
as a unitary article of commerce consisting of two parts: (1) A zinc
alloy or nylon body; and (2) a zinc plated steel pin.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 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);
Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 41006 (July 14, 2015)
(collectively, the Orders).
\2\ See Midwest Fastener's Letter, ``Certain Steel Nails from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Midwest Fastener Scope Request,''
dated November 9, 2016.
\3\ Id. at 2, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 17, 2017, Commerce issued its Final Scope Ruling, in which
it determined that Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors are
unambiguously within the scope of the Orders based upon the plain
meaning of the Orders and the description of the zinc and nylon anchors
contained in Midwest Fastener's scope ruling request and supplemental
questionnaire responses.\4\ Commerce also found that several factors
under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1)--particularly the petition, the final
determination of the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued in
connection with the underlying investigation, and prior scope rulings--
further supported Commerce's determination that Midwest Fastener's zinc
and nylon 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
Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain
Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Scope
Ruling on Midwest Fastener Corp.'s Zinc and Nylon Anchors (Final
Scope Ruling), dated May 17, 2017 at 11-13.
\5\ Id. at 13.
\6\ See Message Number 7153303, dated June 2, 2017; Message
Number 7153302, dated June 2, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Fastener challenged the Final Scope Ruling before the CIT,
and on October 1, 2018, the CIT remanded Commerce's scope ruling.\7\ In
its Remand Order, the CIT held that Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon
anchors, as unitary articles of commerce, are not a ``nail'' within the
plain meaning of the word and are, therefore, outside the scope of the
Orders.\8\ The CIT relied on dictionary definitions to determine the
definition of ``nail'' and concluded that, because Midwest Fastener's
zinc and nylon anchors are 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.\9\ The CIT held that the entire
zinc or nylon anchor is not a nail ``constructed of two or more
pieces'' pursuant to the Orders.\10\ 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
Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors are not nails.\11\ In support
of its conclusion, the CIT cited its decision in OMG, Inc. v. United
States, in which it found a product with a zinc anchor body and a steel
pin outside the scope of the Orders.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United States, Court No. 17-
00131, Slip Op. 18-132 (CIT 2018) (Remand Order).
\8\ See Remand Order, Slip Op. 18-132 at 14.
\9\ Id. at 11.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id. at 12-13.
\12\ Id. at 13, citing OMG, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 17-
00036, Slip Op. 18-63 (CIT 2018) at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce for further
consideration consistent with the CIT's opinion.\13\ The CIT also
directed Commerce to issue appropriate instructions to CBP regarding
the suspension of liquidation of Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon
anchors.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Remand Order, Slip Op. 18-132 at 14.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the CIT's instructions, on remand, under protest,
Commerce found that Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors do not
fall within the scope of the Orders.\15\ On June 3, 2019, the CIT
sustained Commerce's Final Remand Results.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United States, Court No. 17-00131,
Slip Op. 18-132 (CIT October 1, 2018), dated December 21, 2018
(Final Remand Results).
\16\ See Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United States, Court No. 17-
00131, Slip Op. 19-66 (CIT 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\17\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\18\ 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 June 3, 2019 judgment in this case, sustaining Commerce's
decision in the Final Remand Results that Midwest Fastener's zinc and
nylon 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 Midwest Fastener's zinc and nylon anchors
pending expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a
final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
\18\ 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 and nylon anchors specified
in Midwest
[[Page 28461]]
Fastener's Scope Ruling Request. Commerce will instruct CBP that the
cash deposit rate will be zero percent for the zinc and nylon anchors
subject to Midwest Fastener's scope ruling request. In the event that
the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the CAFC,
Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Midwest Fastener's
zinc and nylon 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: June 10, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-12992 Filed 6-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
