Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 56423-56424 [2019-23011]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56423-56424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23011]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-943; C-570-944]


Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 22, 2019, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Bell Supply Co. v. United 
States, Court No. 14-00066, affirming the Department of Commerce's 
(Commerce) remand redetermination concerning the final scope ruling, 
which found that seamless unfinished OCTG from China finished in third 
countries is not substantially transformed by the third country 
processing and is therefore covered by the scope of the Orders.

DATES: Applicable August 1, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On February 7, 2014, the Department issued the Bell Supply Scope 
Ruling,\1\ in which it determined that seamless unfinished OCTG (i.e., 
green tubes) that

[[Page 56424]]

is finished in third countries is covered under the scope of the Orders 
based on an analysis of the factors under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1).\2\ Bell 
Supply Company, LLC (Bell Supply) challenged the Department's final 
ruling before the CIT. On July 9, 2015, the Court issued its opinion on 
the Bell Supply Scope Ruling remanding Commerce's determination back to 
the agency for further analysis.\3\ Commerce issued a redetermination 
on remand, under protest, which continued to find that the merchandise 
in question was within the scope of the Orders.\4\ On April 27, 2016, 
the CIT issued its opinion on the First Remand Results, again remanding 
Commerce's determination for further analysis.\5\ On August 11, 2016, 
Commerce issued the Second Remand Results, determining that green tubes 
manufactured in China, and subsequently finished in a third country, 
are not covered by the scope of the Orders.\6\ In Bell Supply III, the 
CIT sustained Commerce's Second Remand Results.\7\ On January 19, 2017, 
Commerce published a notice of a court decision that is not ``in 
harmony'' with a Commerce determination,\8\ in fulfillment of the 
publication requirements of Timken,\9\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades.\10\ Commerce's Timken Notice and Amended Final Scope Ruling 
also amended the Bell Supply Scope Ruling to find that the scope of the 
Orders does not cover the products addressed in the Bell Supply Scope 
Ruling.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Green Tubes 
Manufactured in the People's Republic of China and Finished in 
Countries Other than the United States and the People's Republic of 
China'' (February 7, 2014) (Bell Supply Scope Ruling).
    \2\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's 
Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203 (January 20, 
2010); see also Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's 
Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 28551 (May 21, 2010) 
(collectively, Orders).
    \3\ See Bell Supply Co. v. United States, Court No. 14-00066, 
Slip Op. 15-73 (CIT July 9, 2015) (Bell Supply I).
    \4\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, 
Bell Supply Co. v. United States, Court No. 14-00066, dated November 
9, 2015 (First Remand Results).
    \5\ See Bell Supply Co. v. United States, Court No. 14-00066, 
Slip Op. 16-41 (CIT April 27, 2016) (Bell Supply II).
    \6\ See Final Results of Second Redetermination Pursuant to 
Remand, Bell Supply Co. v. United States, Court No. 14-00066, dated 
August 11, 2016 (Second Remand Results) at 14-19.
    \7\ See Bell Supply Co. v. United States, Court No. 14-00066, 
Slip Op. 16-109 (CIT Nov. 23, 2016) (Bell Supply III) at 16.
    \8\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With 
Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant 
to Court Decision, 82 FR 6490 (January 19, 2017) (Timken Notice and 
Amended Final Scope Ruling).
    \9\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \10\ Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
    \11\ See Timken Notice and Amended Final Scope Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Domestic interested parties appealed the CIT's affirmance of the 
Second Remand Results to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC). On April 25, 2018, the CAFC vacated the CIT's decision 
sustaining the Second Remand Results, and remanded the case to the CIT 
to determine whether Commerce properly applied its substantial 
transformation analysis in the Bell Supply Scope Ruling.\12\ On October 
18, 2018, the CIT remanded Commerce's Bell Supply Scope Ruling, finding 
that certain factors considered in Commerce's substantial 
transformation analysis were not supported by substantial evidence.\13\ 
Commerce issued the Third Remand Results on March 28, 2019, in which 
Commerce reconsidered the aspects of its substantial transformation 
analysis remanded by the Court and continued to find that green tubes 
are not substantially transformed by the finishing process in third 
countries, and therefore are covered by the scope of the Orders.\14\ On 
July 22, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce's Third Remand Results.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Bell Supply Co. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1222, 1231 
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
    \13\ See Bell Supply Co. v. United States, Court No. 14-00066, 
Slip Op. 18-141 (CIT Oct. 18, 2018) (Bell Supply IV).
    \14\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, 
Bell Supply Co. v. United States, Court No. 14-00066, dated March 
28, 2019 (Third Remand Results).
    \15\ See Bell Supply Co. v. United States, Court No. 14-00066, 
Slip Op. 19-89 (CIT July 22, 2019) (Bell Supply V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    There is now a final court decision with respect to the Bell Supply 
Scope Ruling. Previously, the Timken Notice and Amended Final Scope 
Ruling amended the Bell Supply Scope Ruling to find that the scope did 
not cover the merchandise at issue. Therefore, Commerce is amending its 
scope ruling and finds that the scope of the Orders covers the products 
addressed in the Bell Supply Scope Ruling. The period to appeal the 
CIT's ruling expired on September 22, 2019. Because no parties appealed 
the CIT's ruling, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to continue to suspend liquidation and to require a cash 
deposit of estimated duties on the merchandise subject to the scope 
ruling entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after June 20, 2012, the date of initiation of the scope inquiry.

    Dated: October 15, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-23011 Filed 10-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P