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]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2019 / Notices Corp.) 24. Dai Thanh Seafoods Company Limited (also known as DATHACO, Dai Thanh Seafoods, or Dai Thanh Seafoods Co., Ltd.) 25. East Sea Seafoods LLC (also known as ESS LLC, ESS, ESS JVC, East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company, East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd.) 26. Europe Joint Stock Company (also known as Europe JSC or EJS CO.) 27. Fatifish Company Limited (also known as FATIFISH or FATIFISHCO) 28. Go Dang An Hiep One Member Limited Company 29. Go Dang Ben Tre One Member Limited Liability Company 30. GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company (also known as GODACO, GODACO Seafood J.S.C., GODACO Seafood, or GODOCO_SEAFOOD) 31. Golden Quality Seafood Corporation (also known Golden Quality, GoldenQuality, GoldenQuality Seafood Corporation, or GOLDENQUALITY) 32. Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company (also known as Green Farms, GreenFarm SeaFoods Joint Stock Company, Green Farms Seafoods Joint Stock Company, or Green Farms Seafood JSC) 33. Hai Huong Seafood Joint Stock Company (also known as HHFish, HH Fish, or Hai Houng Seafood) 34. Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Company (also known as Hiep Thanh or Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Co.) 35. Hoa Phat Seafood Import-Export and Processing J.S.C. (also known as HOPAFISH, Hoa Phat Seafood ImportExport and Processing Joint Stock Company, or Hoa Phat Seafood ImportExport and Processing JSC) 36. Hoang Long Seafood Processing Company Limited (also known as HLS, Hoang Long Seafood, Hoang Long Seafood Processing Co.,Ltd., Hoang Long, or HoangLong Seafood) 37. Hung Vuong Ben Tre Seafood Processing Company Limited (also known as Ben Tre, HVBT, or HVBT Seafood Processing) 38. Hung Vuong—Mien Tay Aquaculture Corporation (also known as HVMT or Hung Vuong Mien Tay Aquaculture Joint Stock Company) 39. Hung Vuong—Sa Dec Co., Ltd. (also known as Hung Vuong Sa Dec Company Limited) 40. Hung Vuong—Vinh Long Co., Ltd. (also known as Hung Vuong Vinh Long Company Limited) 41. Hung Vuong Corporation (as known as HVC or HV Corp.) 42. Hung Vuong Joint Stock Company 43. Hung Vuong Mascato Company Limited 44. Hung Vuong Seafood Joint Stock Company 45. International Development & Investment Corporation (also known as IDI or International Development and Investment Corporation) 46. Lian Heng Investment Co., Ltd. (also known as Lian Heng Investment or Lian Heng) 47. Lian Heng Trading Co., Ltd. (also known VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:02 Oct 21, 2019 Jkt 250001 as Lian Heng or Lian Heng Trading) 48. Nam Phuong Seafood Co., Ltd. (also known as Nam Phuong, NAFISHCO, Nam Phuong Seafood, or Nam PhuongSeafood Company Ltd.) 49. Nam Viet Corporation (also known as NAVICO) 50. Ngoc Ha Co. Ltd. Food Processing and Trading (also known as Ngoc Ha or Ngoc Ha Co., Ltd. Foods Processing and Trading) 51. Nha Trang Seafoods, Inc. (also known as Nha Trang Seafoods-F89, Nha Trang Seafoods, or Nha Trang Seaproduct Company) 52. NTACO Corporation (also known as NTACO or NTACO Corp.) 53. NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company (also known as NTSF or NTSF Seafoods) 54. Quang Minh Seafood Company Limited (also known as Quang Minh, Quang Minh Seafood Co., Ltd., or Quang Minh Seafood Co.) 55. QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd. (also known as Dong Thap or QVD DT) 56. QVD Food Company, Ltd. (also known as QVD, QVD Food Co., Ltd., or QVD Aquaculture) 57. Saigon-Mekong Fishery Co., Ltd. (also known as SAMEFICO or Saigon Mekong Fishery Co., Ltd.) 58. Seafood Joint Stock Company No. 4 Branch Dongtam Fisheries Processing Company (also known as DOTASEAFOODCO or Seafood Joint Stock Company No. 4-Branch Dong Tam Fisheries Processing Company) 59. Seavina Joint Stock Company (also known as Seavina) 60. Southern Fishery Industries Company, Ltd. (also known as South Vina, South Vina Co., Ltd., Southern Fisheries Industries Company, Ltd., Southern Fishery Industries Co., Ltd., or Southern Fisheries Industries Company Limited) 61. Sunrise Corporation 62. TG Fishery Holdings Corporation (also known as TG) 63. Thanh Binh Dong Thap One Member Company Limited (also known as Thanh Binh Dong Thap or Thanh Binh Dong Thap Ltd.) 64. Thanh Hung Co., Ltd. (also known as Thanh Hung Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Co., Ltd. or Thanh Hung) 65. Thien Ma Seafood Co., Ltd. (also known as THIMACO, Thien Ma, Thien Ma Seafood Company, Ltd., or Thien Ma Seafoods Co., Ltd.) 66. Thuan An Production Trading and Service Co., Ltd. (also known as TAFISHCO, Thuan An Production Trading and Services Co., Ltd., Thuan An Production & Trading Service Co., Ltd., or Thuan An Production & Trading Services Co., Ltd.) 67. Thuan Hung Co., Ltd. (also known as THUFICO) 68. To Chau Joint Stock Company (also known as TOCHAU, TOCHAU JSC, or TOCHAU Joint Stock Company) 69. Van Duc Food Export Joint Stock Company (also known as Van Duc) 70. Van Duc Tien Giang Food Export Company (also known as VDTG) 71. Viet Hai Seafood Company Limited (also PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 56423 known as Viet Hai, Vietnam Fish-One Co., Ltd. Viet Hai Seafood Co., Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd., Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd., or Fish One) Viet Phu Foods and Fish Corporation (also known as Vietphu, Viet Phu, Viet Phu Food and Fish Corporation, or Viet Phu Food & Fish Corporation) Viet Phu Foods & Fish Co., Ltd. Vinh Hoan Corporation (also known as Vinh Hoan, Vinh Hoan Co., or Vinh Hoan Corp.) Vinh Long Import-Export Company (also known as Vinh Long, Imex Cuu Long or Vinh Long Import/Export Company) Vinh Quang Fisheries Corporation (also known as Vinh Quang, Vinh Quang Fisheries Joint Stock Company, Vinh Quang Fisheries Co. Ltd., or Vinh Quang Fisheries Corp. [FR Doc. 2019–22990 Filed 10–21–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 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 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: AGENCY: 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 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). E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 56424 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2019 / Notices 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 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). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:02 Oct 21, 2019 Jkt 250001 scope of the Orders does not cover the products addressed in the Bell Supply Scope Ruling.11 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 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, 11 See Timken Notice and Amended Final Scope Ruling 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). PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–874] Certain Steel Nails From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017– 2018 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Daejin Steel Company (Daejin), Je-il Wire Production Co., Ltd. (Je-il), 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, 2017 through June 30, 2018. DATES: Applicable October 22, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariela Garvett (Daejin), Lilit Astvatsatrian (Je-il and Koram), or Maliha Khan (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) 482–3609, (202) 482–6412, or (202) 482–0895, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On June 18, 2019, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the 2017–2018 antidumping duty administrative review of steel nails from Korea.1 On July 18, 2019, Daejin and Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner) submitted case briefs.2 On 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; 2017– 2018, 84 FR 28278 (June 18, 2019) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Results). 2 See Daejin’s Letter, ‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Order on Certain Steels Nails from Korea—Redacted Case Brief,’’ dated September 24, 2019; see also Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Steel Nails from Korea: Case Brief on Daejin Steel Company and Koram Inc.,’’ dated July 18, 2019. E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1

Agencies

[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