North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Review: Notice of NAFTA Panel Decision, 47484-47485 [2019-19533]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
47484
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2019 / Notices
The HTSUS subheadings above are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes only. The written description of the
scope of the investigation is dispositive.
List of Topics Discussed in the
Preliminary Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Period of Investigation
IV. Postponement of the Final Determination
V. Scope Comments
VI. Scope of the Investigation
VII. Affiliation and Collapsing
VIII. Discussion of the Methodology
IX. Date of Sale
X. Universe of Sales Examined
XI. Product Comparisons
XII. Export Price/Constructed Export Price
XIII. Normal Value/Constructed Value
XIV. Currency Conversion
XV. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2019–19511 Filed 9–9–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel
Review: Notice of NAFTA Panel
Decision
United States Section, NAFTA
Secretariat, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of NAFTA Interim Panel
Decision and Order in the matter of
Softwood Lumber from Canada
(Secretariat File Number: USA–CDA–
2018–1904–03).
AGENCY:
On September 4, 2019, the
Binational Panel issued its Interim
Decision and Order in the matter of
Softwood Lumber from Canada. The
Binational Panel affirmed in part and
remanded in part the Final
Determination by the United States
International Trade Commission
(Commission).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
E. Morris, United States Secretary,
NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides
a dispute settlement mechanism
involving trade remedy determinations
issued by the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada, and
the Government of Mexico. Following a
Request for Panel Review, a Binational
Panel is composed to review the trade
remedy determination being challenged
and issue a binding Panel Decision.
There are established NAFTA Rules of
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Sep 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
Procedure for Article 1904 Binational
Panel Reviews (Rules) and the NAFTA
Panel Decision has been notified in
accordance with Rule 70. For the
complete Rules, please see https://
www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Textsof-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/
Article-1904.
Panel Decision: On September 4,
2019, the Binational Panel issued its
Interim Decision and Order which
affirmed in part and remanded in part
the Final Determination by United
States International Trade Commission.
In accordance with NAFTA Article
1904.8, for reasons more fully set forth
in within the Analysis section of the
Decision (which shall be controlling in
the event of conflict), and based upon
the evidence in the administrative
record, the applicable law, the written
submissions of the Parties, and oral
argument at the Panel’s hearing, the
Panel remands the Commission’s
determinations as follows:
With respect to the Business Cycle
and Conditions of Competition, the
Panel remands this issue to the
Commission and directs the
Commission to reconsider the record
evidence in relation to the business
cycle(s) distinctive to the U.S. lumber
industry, and to apply its findings in its
analysis of volume, price effects,
impact, and causation.
With respect to the use of PostPetition data, the Panel remands the
Commission’s decision to reduce the
weight it accorded to interim 2017 data
and directs the Commission to provide
a reasoned determination on whether or
not to reduce the weight accorded to
interim 2017 data;
The Panel directs the Commission to
clarify whether or not it is also reducing
the weight accorded to third- and
fourth-quarter 2017 data. If, upon
reconsideration, the Commission
decides to reduce the weight given to
post-petition data, the Commission is
further directed to clarify what weight,
if any, it is giving to post-petition data
and the reasons for this determination.
With respect to the Substitutability
conclusions, the Panel remands the
matter to the Commission, and directs it
to reconsider its calculation of
substitution elasticity, explaining how it
reached its conclusion and
demonstrating how that conclusion was
applied in the Commission’s analysis of
volume, price effects, impact, and
causation; and demonstrate how, and to
what extent, the limitations to
substitutability implied in its
conclusion that the goods were ‘‘at least
moderately substitutable’’ factored into
the Commission’s analysis of volume,
price effects, impact, and causation.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
With respect to the Volume analysis,
the Panel remands this determination to
the Commission and directs the
Commission to consider all record
evidence to demonstrate how, and to
what extent, the limitations to
substitutability implied in its
conclusion that the goods were ‘‘at least
moderately substitutable’’ factored into
its conclusion that subject imports
experienced significant gains in market
share directly at the expense of the
domestic industry. The Panel directs the
Commission to further reconsider its
volume analysis as the Commission
determines appropriate.
With respect to the Price Effects
analysis, as to the Domestic Capacity
aspect of the price suppression analysis,
the Panel remands this determination to
the Commission and directs the
Commission to consider whether to take
the more recent Forest Economic
Advisors (‘‘FEA’’) data into account in
its domestic capacity analysis, explain
its decision, and, if it decides to take the
updated FEA data into account,
reconsider its price effects analysis as it
determines is appropriate.
As to the Different Softwood Species
aspect of the price suppression analysis,
the Panel remands this determination to
the Commission and directs the
Commission to reconsider its
conclusion that the prices of different
species closely track each other to take
into consideration that price movements
of one species ‘‘affect’’ prices of other
species, the existence of a ‘‘great
difference in price movement’’ of one
species compared to another, and that
prices for different species ‘‘generally
track’’ each other, as well as any other
record evidence, and to determine what
effect such reconsideration has on its
price suppression analysis.
As to the Cost of Goods Sold
(‘‘COGS’’) and Pricing Trends aspect of
the price suppression issue, the Panel
remands this determination to the
Commission and directs the
Commission to reconsider its COGS and
price trends analysis to take into
account the Commission’s finding that
subject imports and domestic products
are at least moderately substitutable,
and determine what effect such
reconsideration has on its finding that
subject imports prevented price
increases which otherwise would have
occurred to a significant degree.
With respect to the Questionnaire
Responses aspect of the price
suppression analysis, the Panel remands
this determination to the Commission
and directs the Commission to
reconsider the record evidence, its
conclusion that purchasers confirmed
purchasing subject imports rather than
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2019 / Notices
domestic product solely due to their
lower prices, and to determine what
effect such reconsideration has on its
price suppression analysis.
With respect to the Impact issue, the
Panel found that the Commission’s
finding of adverse impact is lawful and
supported by substantial evidence in
light of its determinations regarding
post-petition data, substitutability,
volume, price effects, and the business
cycle, which have been remanded
elsewhere in this decision. If, in any of
these remands, the Commission reaches
a different finding or conclusion on the
particular issue, then the Panel directs
the Commission to determine and
explain what effect such reconsideration
has on its impact analysis.
With respect to the Causation issue,
the Panel found that the Commission’s
finding of causation is lawful and
supported by substantial evidence in
light of its determinations regarding
volume, price effect, and impact. If, after
reconsideration, the Commission
reaches a different finding or conclusion
on any of these issues, then the Panel
directs the Commission to determine
and explain what effect such
reconsideration has on its causation
analysis.
The Panel ordered the Commission to
submit its redetermination on remand
within 90 days from the issuance of the
Interim Panel Decision and Order. For
the full Interim Panel Decision and
Order, please see https://www.nafta-secalena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/
Decisions-and-Reports.
Dated: September 5, 2019.
Paul E. Morris,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2019–19533 Filed 9–9–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–046]
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid From the People’s
Republic of China: Rescission of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; 2018
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) is rescinding the
administrative review of the
countervailing duty (CVD) order on 1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic
Acid (HEDP) from the People’s Republic
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Sep 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
of China (China) for the period January
1, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
DATES: Applicable September 10, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Justin Neuman, 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) 482–0486.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 1, 2019, Commerce published
in the Federal Register a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the CVD order on HEDP from
China for the period January 1, 2018,
through December 31, 2018.1 On May
31, 2019, Compass Chemical
International LLC (Compass Chemical),
a domestic interested party, filed a
timely request for review with respect to
Shandong Taihe Chemicals Co., Ltd.,
Shandong Taihe Water Treatment
Technologies Co., Ltd., and Henan
Qingshuiyuan Technology Co., Ltd., in
accordance with section 751(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
and 19 CFR 351.213(b).2 Pursuant to
this request, and in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an
administrative review of these
companies.3 On August 26, 2019,
Compass Chemical filed a timely
withdrawal of request for the
administrative review.4
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
that requested the review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of
the requested review. As noted above,
Compass Chemical, the only party to file
a request for review, withdrew its
request by the 90-day deadline.
Accordingly, we are rescinding the
administrative review of the CVD order
on HEDP from China for the period
January 1, 2018, through December 31,
2018, in its entirety.
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 84 FR 18479
(May 1, 2019).
2 See Letter from Compass Chemical, ‘‘Request for
Administrative Review: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated May 31, 2019.
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 84 FR
33739 (July 15, 2019).
4 See Letter from Compass Chemical, ‘‘1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated August 26,
2019.
47485
Assessment
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess
CVD duties on all appropriate entries of
HEDP from China. CVD duties shall be
assessed at rates equal to the cash
deposit of estimated CVD 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
date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a reminder to
importers of their responsibility under
19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of CVD
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
CVD duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of doubled CVD
duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to all parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. 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: September 4, 2019.
James Maeder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2019–19507 Filed 9–9–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
1 See
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the
Department of Commerce (Commerce) is
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47484-47485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19533]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904
Binational Panel Review: Notice of NAFTA Panel Decision
AGENCY: United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of NAFTA Interim Panel Decision and Order in the matter
of Softwood Lumber from Canada (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2018-
1904-03).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 4, 2019, the Binational Panel issued its Interim
Decision and Order in the matter of Softwood Lumber from Canada. The
Binational Panel affirmed in part and remanded in part the Final
Determination by the United States International Trade Commission
(Commission).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul E. Morris, United States
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides
a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations
issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of
Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel
Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy
determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision.
There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews (Rules) and the NAFTA Panel Decision has been
notified in accordance with Rule 70. For the complete Rules, please see
https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/Article-1904.
Panel Decision: On September 4, 2019, the Binational Panel issued
its Interim Decision and Order which affirmed in part and remanded in
part the Final Determination by United States International Trade
Commission. In accordance with NAFTA Article 1904.8, for reasons more
fully set forth in within the Analysis section of the Decision (which
shall be controlling in the event of conflict), and based upon the
evidence in the administrative record, the applicable law, the written
submissions of the Parties, and oral argument at the Panel's hearing,
the Panel remands the Commission's determinations as follows:
With respect to the Business Cycle and Conditions of Competition,
the Panel remands this issue to the Commission and directs the
Commission to reconsider the record evidence in relation to the
business cycle(s) distinctive to the U.S. lumber industry, and to apply
its findings in its analysis of volume, price effects, impact, and
causation.
With respect to the use of Post-Petition data, the Panel remands
the Commission's decision to reduce the weight it accorded to interim
2017 data and directs the Commission to provide a reasoned
determination on whether or not to reduce the weight accorded to
interim 2017 data;
The Panel directs the Commission to clarify whether or not it is
also reducing the weight accorded to third- and fourth-quarter 2017
data. If, upon reconsideration, the Commission decides to reduce the
weight given to post-petition data, the Commission is further directed
to clarify what weight, if any, it is giving to post-petition data and
the reasons for this determination.
With respect to the Substitutability conclusions, the Panel remands
the matter to the Commission, and directs it to reconsider its
calculation of substitution elasticity, explaining how it reached its
conclusion and demonstrating how that conclusion was applied in the
Commission's analysis of volume, price effects, impact, and causation;
and demonstrate how, and to what extent, the limitations to
substitutability implied in its conclusion that the goods were ``at
least moderately substitutable'' factored into the Commission's
analysis of volume, price effects, impact, and causation.
With respect to the Volume analysis, the Panel remands this
determination to the Commission and directs the Commission to consider
all record evidence to demonstrate how, and to what extent, the
limitations to substitutability implied in its conclusion that the
goods were ``at least moderately substitutable'' factored into its
conclusion that subject imports experienced significant gains in market
share directly at the expense of the domestic industry. The Panel
directs the Commission to further reconsider its volume analysis as the
Commission determines appropriate.
With respect to the Price Effects analysis, as to the Domestic
Capacity aspect of the price suppression analysis, the Panel remands
this determination to the Commission and directs the Commission to
consider whether to take the more recent Forest Economic Advisors
(``FEA'') data into account in its domestic capacity analysis, explain
its decision, and, if it decides to take the updated FEA data into
account, reconsider its price effects analysis as it determines is
appropriate.
As to the Different Softwood Species aspect of the price
suppression analysis, the Panel remands this determination to the
Commission and directs the Commission to reconsider its conclusion that
the prices of different species closely track each other to take into
consideration that price movements of one species ``affect'' prices of
other species, the existence of a ``great difference in price
movement'' of one species compared to another, and that prices for
different species ``generally track'' each other, as well as any other
record evidence, and to determine what effect such reconsideration has
on its price suppression analysis.
As to the Cost of Goods Sold (``COGS'') and Pricing Trends aspect
of the price suppression issue, the Panel remands this determination to
the Commission and directs the Commission to reconsider its COGS and
price trends analysis to take into account the Commission's finding
that subject imports and domestic products are at least moderately
substitutable, and determine what effect such reconsideration has on
its finding that subject imports prevented price increases which
otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree.
With respect to the Questionnaire Responses aspect of the price
suppression analysis, the Panel remands this determination to the
Commission and directs the Commission to reconsider the record
evidence, its conclusion that purchasers confirmed purchasing subject
imports rather than
[[Page 47485]]
domestic product solely due to their lower prices, and to determine
what effect such reconsideration has on its price suppression analysis.
With respect to the Impact issue, the Panel found that the
Commission's finding of adverse impact is lawful and supported by
substantial evidence in light of its determinations regarding post-
petition data, substitutability, volume, price effects, and the
business cycle, which have been remanded elsewhere in this decision.
If, in any of these remands, the Commission reaches a different finding
or conclusion on the particular issue, then the Panel directs the
Commission to determine and explain what effect such reconsideration
has on its impact analysis.
With respect to the Causation issue, the Panel found that the
Commission's finding of causation is lawful and supported by
substantial evidence in light of its determinations regarding volume,
price effect, and impact. If, after reconsideration, the Commission
reaches a different finding or conclusion on any of these issues, then
the Panel directs the Commission to determine and explain what effect
such reconsideration has on its causation analysis.
The Panel ordered the Commission to submit its redetermination on
remand within 90 days from the issuance of the Interim Panel Decision
and Order. For the full Interim Panel Decision and Order, please see
https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Decisions-and-Reports.
Dated: September 5, 2019.
Paul E. Morris,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2019-19533 Filed 9-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
