Sugar From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Regarding Amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 58129-58130 [2019-23769]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Notices administrative review of the countervailing duty order on circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) from the People’s Republic of China (China) for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, based on the timely withdrawal of the request for review. DATES: Applicable October 30, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1791. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 1, 2019, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on CWP from China for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018.1 In July 2019, Commerce received a timely request, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to conduct an administrative review of this countervailing duty order from Independence Tube Corporation, a Nucor Company, and Southland Tube, Incorporated, a Nucor Company (collectively, the petitioner).2 We received no other requests for review. Based upon the petitioner’s request, on September 9, 2019, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation listing 147 companies for which Commerce received a timely request for review.3 In October 2019, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for an administrative review for all 147 companies.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 a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of 1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 84 FR 31295 (July 1, 2019). 2 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from The People’s Republic of China: Request for Administrative Review,’’ dated July 31, 2019. 3 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 84 FR 47242 (September 9, 2019). 4 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from The People’s Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,’’ dated October 17, 2019. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:18 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 the requested review. As noted above, the petitioner withdrew its request for review by the 90-day deadline, and we received no other requests for review. Accordingly, we are rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on CWP from China covering the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, in its entirety. Assessment Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing 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 publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to 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(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information. 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 a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 751(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 24, 2019. James Maeder, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2019–23683 Filed 10–29–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–845] Sugar From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Regarding Amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 58129 On October 18, 2019, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a final judgment in CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, Ct. No. 17–00215, Slip Op. 19–132 (CIT October 18, 2019) (CSC Sugar II). Commerce is notifying the public of the CIT’s ruling that Commerce’s 2017 amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico (AD Agreement) must be vacated. Commerce intends to take action to implement the CIT ruling by November 18, 2019. DATES: October 30, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon, Bilateral Agreements Unit, Office of Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0162. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Background On December 19, 2014, Commerce and the signatory producers/exporters accounting for substantially all imports of sugar from Mexico signed the AD Agreement.1 Between June 2016 and June 2017, Commerce and the signatory producers/exporters accounting for substantially all imports of sugar from Mexico held consultations to address concerns raised by the domestic industry and to ensure that the AD Agreement met the statutory requirements for a suspension agreement, e.g., that suspension of the investigation was in the public interest, including the availability of supplies of sugar in the U.S. market, and that effective monitoring was practicable. The consultations resulted in Commerce and the signatory producers/exporters accounting for substantially all imports of sugar from Mexico signing an amendment to the AD Agreement on June 30, 2017, which was subsequently published in the Federal Register.2 CSC Sugar LLC (CSC Sugar) challenged Commerce’s determination to amend the AD Agreement by contending that Commerce did not meet its obligation to file a complete administrative record.3 Specifically, CSC Sugar argued that Commerce failed to memorialize and include in the record ex parte communications 1 See Sugar From Mexico: Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 79 FR 78039 (December 29, 2014). 2 See Sugar From Mexico: Amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 82 FR 31945 (July 11, 2017) (AD Amendment). 3 See CSC Sugar II at 4. E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM 30OCN1 58130 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Notices between Commerce officials and interested parties (including the domestic sugar industry and representatives of Mexico) as required by section 777(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).4 The CIT agreed with CSC Sugar and ordered Commerce to supplement the administrative record with any ex parte communications regarding the AD Amendment.5 CSC Sugar subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the agency record arguing that Commerce’s failure, during the consultations period, to maintain contemporaneous ex parte communication memoranda, in accordance with section 777(a)(3) of the Act, could not be adequately remedied by Commerce’s delayed and incomplete supplementation of the record.6 The CIT found that Commerce’s failure to follow the recordkeeping requirements of Section 777 of the Act cannot be described as ‘‘harmless.’’ 7 The CIT found that this recordkeeping failure substantially prejudiced CSC Sugar.8 On that basis, the CIT stated that the AD Amendment must be vacated.9 The AD Amendment remains in force until Commerce takes action to implement the CIT’s ruling. The CIT’s rules establish an automatic 30-day stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment.10 Accordingly, Commerce intends to implement the CIT’s ruling by November 18, 2019.11 Dated: October 25, 2019. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2019–23769 Filed 10–29–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–900] Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Circumvention Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Protech Diamond Tools Inc. (Protech) is circumventing the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond sawblades) from the People’s Republic of China (China). DATES: Applicable October 30, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5760. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On May 3, 2019, in response to a request from the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition (the petitioner), Commerce published the initiation of the anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether certain imports of diamond sawblades comprised of cores and segments produced in China and joined into diamond sawblades in, and exported from, Canada by Protech are circumventing the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China.1 Scope of the Order 4 Id. 5 Id. (citing CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 317 F. Supp. 3d 1322, 1326 (CIT 2018)). 6 See CSC Sugar II at 4. 7 Id. at 11–12. 8Id. at 12. 9Id. 10 See CIT Rule 62(a) (‘‘Except as stated in this rule or as otherwise ordered by the court, no execution may issue on a judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 30 days have passed after its entry.’’). 11 See CIT Rule 6(a)(1). In this case, the 30th day after October 18 is Sunday, November 17. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:18 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 The products subject to the order are diamond sawblades. The diamond sawblades subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheadings 8202 to 8206 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and may also enter under subheading 6804.21.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.2 The written description is dispositive. 1 See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of AntiCircumvention Inquiry, 84 FR 19043 (May 3, 2019) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry We initiated this anti-circumvention inquiry to cover diamond sawblades produced in Canada by Protech with cores and segments produced in China and subsequently exported from Canada by Protech to the United States.3 Methodology Commerce is conducting this anticircumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.225(h). Because Protech did not respond to our request for information, we made the affirmative preliminary determination based on adverse facts available in accordance with section 776(a)–(b) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum 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 to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Preliminary Determination As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Commerce preliminarily determines that diamond sawblades produced by Protech in Canada using cores and segments from China and exported from Canada by Protech to the United States are circumventing the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. We therefore preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to include this merchandise within the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China and to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend entries of merchandise produced using Chinese cores and Chinese segments by Protech in Canada Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Circumvention,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) at 2–3. 3 See Initiation Notice, 84 FR at 19043 (‘‘This anticircumvention inquiry covers diamond sawblades produced in Canada using cores and segments of Chinese origin and exported from Canada to the United States by Protech.’’). E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM 30OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58129-58130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-845]


Sugar From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Regarding Amendment 
to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On October 18, 2019, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) issued a final judgment in CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 
Ct. No. 17-00215, Slip Op. 19-132 (CIT October 18, 2019) (CSC Sugar 
II). Commerce is notifying the public of the CIT's ruling that 
Commerce's 2017 amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping 
Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico (AD Agreement) must be vacated. 
Commerce intends to take action to implement the CIT ruling by November 
18, 2019.

DATES: October 30, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon, Bilateral Agreements 
Unit, Office of Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0162.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On December 19, 2014, Commerce and the signatory producers/
exporters accounting for substantially all imports of sugar from Mexico 
signed the AD Agreement.\1\ Between June 2016 and June 2017, Commerce 
and the signatory producers/exporters accounting for substantially all 
imports of sugar from Mexico held consultations to address concerns 
raised by the domestic industry and to ensure that the AD Agreement met 
the statutory requirements for a suspension agreement, e.g., that 
suspension of the investigation was in the public interest, including 
the availability of supplies of sugar in the U.S. market, and that 
effective monitoring was practicable. The consultations resulted in 
Commerce and the signatory producers/exporters accounting for 
substantially all imports of sugar from Mexico signing an amendment to 
the AD Agreement on June 30, 2017, which was subsequently published in 
the Federal Register.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Sugar From Mexico: Suspension of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 79 FR 78039 (December 29, 2014).
    \2\ See Sugar From Mexico: Amendment to the Agreement Suspending 
the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 82 FR 31945 (July 11, 2017) (AD 
Amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSC Sugar LLC (CSC Sugar) challenged Commerce's determination to 
amend the AD Agreement by contending that Commerce did not meet its 
obligation to file a complete administrative record.\3\ Specifically, 
CSC Sugar argued that Commerce failed to memorialize and include in the 
record ex parte communications

[[Page 58130]]

between Commerce officials and interested parties (including the 
domestic sugar industry and representatives of Mexico) as required by 
section 777(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CSC Sugar II at 4.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT agreed with CSC Sugar and ordered Commerce to supplement 
the administrative record with any ex parte communications regarding 
the AD Amendment.\5\ CSC Sugar subsequently filed a motion for judgment 
on the agency record arguing that Commerce's failure, during the 
consultations period, to maintain contemporaneous ex parte 
communication memoranda, in accordance with section 777(a)(3) of the 
Act, could not be adequately remedied by Commerce's delayed and 
incomplete supplementation of the record.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. (citing CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 317 F. Supp. 3d 
1322, 1326 (CIT 2018)).
    \6\ See CSC Sugar II at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT found that Commerce's failure to follow the recordkeeping 
requirements of Section 777 of the Act cannot be described as 
``harmless.'' \7\ The CIT found that this recordkeeping failure 
substantially prejudiced CSC Sugar.\8\ On that basis, the CIT stated 
that the AD Amendment must be vacated.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. at 11-12.
    \8\Id. at 12.
    \9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AD Amendment remains in force until Commerce takes action to 
implement the CIT's ruling. The CIT's rules establish an automatic 30-
day stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment.\10\ Accordingly, 
Commerce intends to implement the CIT's ruling by November 18, 
2019.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CIT Rule 62(a) (``Except as stated in this rule or as 
otherwise ordered by the court, no execution may issue on a 
judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 30 days 
have passed after its entry.'').
    \11\ See CIT Rule 6(a)(1). In this case, the 30th day after 
October 18 is Sunday, November 17.

    Dated: October 25, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
 [FR Doc. 2019-23769 Filed 10-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.