Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Countervailing Duty Determination, and Notice of Amended Final Countervailing Duty Determination, 64459-64460 [2019-25392]

Download as PDF khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2019 / Notices 9. Binh Dong Fisheries Joint Stock Company 10. Binh Thuan Import–Export Joint Stock Company (THAIMEX) 11. Ca Mau Agricultural Products and Foodstuff Imp-Exp Joint Stock Company (Agrimexco Camau) 12. Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘Cadovimex’’) Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (Cadovimex) Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Co. (‘‘CADOVIMEX’’) 13. Cholimex Food Joint Stock Company 14. CJ Cau Tre Foods Joint Stock Company 15. CJ Freshway (FIDES Food System Co., Ltd.) 16. Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (‘‘COFIDEC’’) 17. Cty Tnhh Anh Khoa Seafood 18. Danang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation (SEADANANG) 19. Dong Do Profo., Ltd. 20. Dong Hai Seafood Limited Company 21. Dong Phuong Seafood Co., Ltd. 22. Duc Cuong Seafood Trading Co., Ltd. 23. Fine Foods Company (FFC) Fine Foods Company (FFC) (Ca Mau Foods & Fishery Export Joint Stock Company) 24. Gallant Dachan Seafood Co., Ltd. 25. Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. Gallant Ocean Viet Nam Co., Ltd. 26. Green Farms Joint Stock Company Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company Green Farms Seafoods Joint Stock Company 27. Ha Cat A International Co., Ltd. 28. Hanh An Trading Service Co., Ltd. 29. Hanoi Seaproducts Import & Export Joint Stock Corporation (Seaprodex Hanoi) 30. Hoa Trung Seafood Corporation (HSC) 31. Hong Ngoc Seafood Co., Ltd. 32. Hung Bang Co., Ltd. 33. HungHau Agricultural Joint Stock Company 34. Huynh Huong Seafood Processing 35. Huynh Huong Trading and Import-Export Joint Stock Company 36. JK Fish Co., Ltd. 37. Kaiyo Seafood Joint Stock Company 38. Khai Minh Trading Investment Corporation 39. Khanh Hoa Seafoods Exporting Company (KHASPEXCO) 40. Lam Son Import-Export Foodstuff Company Limited (Lamson Fimexco) Lam Son Import-Export Foodstuffs Corporation 41. Long Toan Frozen Aquatic Products Joint Stock Company 42. Minh Bach Seafood Company (Minh Binh Seafood Foods Co., Ltd.) Minh Bach Seafood Company Limited 43. Minh Cuong Seafood Import Export Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘MC Seafood’’) Minh Cuong Seafood Import-Export Processing (‘‘MC Seafood’’) 44. Minh Phu Seafood Corporation 45. Namcan Seaproducts Import Export Joint Stock Company (Seanamico) 46. New Generation Seafood Joint Stock Company New Generation Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘New Generation’’) 47. New Wind Seafood Co., Ltd. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Nov 21, 2019 Jkt 250001 48. Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) 49. Nhat Duc Co., Ltd. 50. Nigico Co., Ltd. 51. Phu Cuong Jostoco Corp. Phu Cuong Jostoco Seafood Corporation 52. Phu Minh Hung Seafood Joint Stock Company 53. Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp. Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp., Ltd. 54. Quoc Ai Seafood Processing Import Export Co., Ltd. 55. Quoc Toan Seafood Processing Factory (Quoc Toan PTE) 56. Quy Nhon Frozen Seafoods Joint Stock Company 57. Saigon Aquatic Product Trading Joint Stock Company (APT Co.) 58. Saigon Food Joint Stock Company 59. Seafood Joint Stock Company No.4 60. South Ha Tinh Seaproducts ImportExport Joint Stock Company 61. Special Aquatic Products Joint Stock Company (SEASPIMEX VIETNAM) 62. T & P Seafood Company Limited 63. Tai Nguyen Seafood Co., Ltd. 64. Tan Phong Phu Seafood Co., Ltd. (‘‘TPP Co., Ltd.’’) Tan Phong Phu Seafood Co., Ltd. (TPP Co. Ltd.) 65. Tan Thanh Loi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. 66. Thien Phu Export Seafood Processing Company Limited 67. Thinh Hung Co., Ltd. 68. Trang Corporation (Vietnam) 69. Trang Khan Seafood Co., Ltd. 70. Viet Asia Foods Co., Ltd. 71. Viet Nam Seaproducts—Joint Stock Company 72. Viet Phu Foods and Fish Corp. 73. Viet Shrimp Export Processing Joint Stock Company [FR Doc. 2019–25374 Filed 11–21–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–580–888] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-ToLength Plate From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Countervailing Duty Determination, and Notice of Amended Final Countervailing Duty Determination Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 8, 2019, the United States Court of International Trade (Court) sustained the final remand results pertaining to the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on certain carbon and alloy steel cut-tolength (CTL) plate from the Republic of Korea (Korea) covering the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The Department of Commerce AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 64459 (Commerce) is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final determination of the CVD investigation and that Commerce is amending the final determination with respect to the net countervailable subsidy rates assigned to POSCO and all other producers/ exporters not individually investigated. DATES: Applicable November 18, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas, 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) 482–3813. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 4, 2017, Commerce published its Final Determination.1 In the Final Determination, Commerce calculated a net countervailable subsidy rate of 4.31 percent for POSCO.2 On December 6, 2018, the Court remanded various aspects of the Final Determination to Commerce.3 In its Remand Order, the Court upheld Commerce’s application of adverse facts available (AFA) to POSCO’s crossowned company POSCO M-Tech’s unreported additional government subsidies, but remanded to the agency for reconsideration its determination that the assistance received by POSCO M-Tech was countervailable.4 Specifically, the Court held that Commerce did not sufficiently justify its application of AFA in making its benefit and specificity findings regarding this program.5 Separately, the Court held that Commerce did not ‘‘evaluate the application of the highest available AFA rates’’ as required by section 776(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).6 Accordingly, it remanded the Final Determination to Commerce for reconsideration of ‘‘why the highest available rate should apply to 1 See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-ToLength Plate from the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, 82 FR 16341 (April 4, 2017) (Final Determination), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 See Final Determination, 82 FR at 16342; see also Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel CutTo-Length Plate from the Republic of Korea: Final Determination Calculation Memorandum for POSCO,’’ dated March 29, 2017. 3 See POSCO v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 3d 1357 (CIT 2018) (Remand Order). 4 Id. at 1374, 1376. 5 Id. at 1374. 6 Id. at 1374 and 1382–83. E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM 22NON1 64460 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2019 / Notices POSCO.’’ 7 Because the Court remanded Commerce’s Final Determination on these bases, it did not address whether the agency corroborated the AFA rates at issue.8 Shortly thereafter, POSCO filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s opinion. In its Reconsideration Order,9 the Court concluded that ‘‘Commerce did not provide any additional explanation of how it determined that there was no identical program before moving to the second step of its AFA methodology—using the rate in another investigation—and, thus, did not make the requisite factual findings to address POSCO’s contention that the {Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act} grant was an identical program in the proceeding.’’ 10 Accordingly, it further remanded the Final Determination to Commerce for consideration of this issue. Pursuant to the Remand Order and Reconsideration Order, Commerce issued its Final Redetermination, which addressed the Court’s holdings and revised the net countervailable subsidy rate assigned to POSCO to 3.72 percent.11 On November 8, 2019, the Court sustained Commerce’s Final Redetermination and entered final judgment.12 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,13 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,14 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to sections 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Commerce determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The Court’s November 8, 2019, judgment sustaining Commerce’s Final Redetermination constitutes a final decision of that court, which is not in harmony with Commerce’s Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise at issue 7 Id. at 1374 and 1383. at 1383 n.15. 9 See POSCO v. United States, 382 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (CIT 2019) (Reconsideration Order). 10 Id. at 1349. 11 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Consol. Court No. 17–00137, dated July 1, 2019 (Final Redetermination). 12 See POSCO v. United States, Slip Op. 18–169, Consol. Ct. No. 17–00137 (CIT 2018). 13 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F. 2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 14 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F. 3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 20 10) (Diamond Sawblades). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Nov 21, 2019 Jkt 250001 Dated: November 18, 2019. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. pending a final and conclusive court decision. Amended Final Determination Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending its Final Determination with respect to the net countervailable subsidy rate assigned to POSCO. Additionally, because the rate for all other producers/ exporters not individually investigated was based on the net countervailable subsidy rate calculated for POSCO, Commerce is amending the all-others rate.15 As previously indicated, in accordance with the scope of the underlying investigation, this application of POSCO’s subsidy rate to all other producers/exporters applies only to subject CTL plate not within the physical description of cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate in the 1999 Korea CVD Order.16 The revised net countervailable subsidy rates for POSCO, and all other producers/ exporters not individually investigated for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, are as follows: Producer/exporter POSCO ....................................... All Others .................................... Subsidy rate (percent) 3.72 3.72 Cash Deposit Requirements Because POSCO does not have a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been no final results published in a subsequent administrative review for POSCO, Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Effective November 18, 2019, the cash deposit rate applicable to entries of subject merchandise exported by POSCO is 3.72 percent. Similarly, Commerce will also instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for companies covered by the all-others cash deposit rate according to the table above, effective November 18, 2019. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and (e)(1), 705(c)(1)(B), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 15 See Final Determination, 82 FR at 16342. id. n.10 (citing Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 6587 (December 29, 1999), as amended, 65 FR 6587 (February 10, 2000) (1999 Korea CVD Order)). 16 See PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 [FR Doc. 2019–25392 Filed 11–21–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–523–810] Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From the Sultanate of Oman: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017–2018 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that OCTAL SAOC–FZC (OCTAL) did not make sales of polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET resin) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018. SUMMARY: DATES: Applicable November 22, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Hill, 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) 482–3518. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 18, 2019, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the 2017–2018 antidumping duty (AD) administrative review of PET resin from Oman.1 On August 19, 2019, DAK Americas, LLC, Indorama Ventures USA, Inc., and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (petitioners) requested that Commerce conduct a hearing in this proceeding.2 On August 20, 2019, we received a case brief from the petitioners and on August 30, 2019, we received a rebuttal brief from 1 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the Sultanate of Oman: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017– 2018, 84 FR 34343 (July 18, 2019) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the Sultanate of Oman— Petitioners’ Request for Hearing,’’ dated August 19, 2019. E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM 22NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64459-64460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25392]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-580-888]


Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From the 
Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final 
Countervailing Duty Determination, and Notice of Amended Final 
Countervailing Duty Determination

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

SUMMARY: On November 8, 2019, the United States Court of International 
Trade (Court) sustained the final remand results pertaining to the 
countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on certain carbon and alloy 
steel cut-to-length (CTL) plate from the Republic of Korea (Korea) 
covering the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The 
Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the 
final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final 
determination of the CVD investigation and that Commerce is amending 
the final determination with respect to the net countervailable subsidy 
rates assigned to POSCO and all other producers/exporters not 
individually investigated.

DATES: Applicable November 18, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas, 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) 482-3813.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 4, 2017, Commerce published its Final Determination.\1\ In 
the Final Determination, Commerce calculated a net countervailable 
subsidy rate of 4.31 percent for POSCO.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from 
the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances 
Determination, 82 FR 16341 (April 4, 2017) (Final Determination), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    \2\ See Final Determination, 82 FR at 16342; see also 
Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Carbon and 
Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from the Republic of Korea: Final 
Determination Calculation Memorandum for POSCO,'' dated March 29, 
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 6, 2018, the Court remanded various aspects of the 
Final Determination to Commerce.\3\ In its Remand Order, the Court 
upheld Commerce's application of adverse facts available (AFA) to 
POSCO's cross-owned company POSCO M-Tech's unreported additional 
government subsidies, but remanded to the agency for reconsideration 
its determination that the assistance received by POSCO M-Tech was 
countervailable.\4\ Specifically, the Court held that Commerce did not 
sufficiently justify its application of AFA in making its benefit and 
specificity findings regarding this program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See POSCO v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 3d 1357 (CIT 2018) 
(Remand Order).
    \4\ Id. at 1374, 1376.
    \5\ Id. at 1374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, the Court held that Commerce did not ``evaluate the 
application of the highest available AFA rates'' as required by section 
776(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).\6\ 
Accordingly, it remanded the Final Determination to Commerce for 
reconsideration of ``why the highest available rate should apply to

[[Page 64460]]

POSCO.'' \7\ Because the Court remanded Commerce's Final Determination 
on these bases, it did not address whether the agency corroborated the 
AFA rates at issue.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at 1374 and 1382-83.
    \7\ Id. at 1374 and 1383.
    \8\ Id. at 1383 n.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, POSCO filed a motion for reconsideration of the 
Court's opinion. In its Reconsideration Order,\9\ the Court concluded 
that ``Commerce did not provide any additional explanation of how it 
determined that there was no identical program before moving to the 
second step of its AFA methodology--using the rate in another 
investigation--and, thus, did not make the requisite factual findings 
to address POSCO's contention that the {Industrial Technology 
Innovation Promotion Act{time}  grant was an identical program in the 
proceeding.'' \10\ Accordingly, it further remanded the Final 
Determination to Commerce for consideration of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See POSCO v. United States, 382 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (CIT 2019) 
(Reconsideration Order).
    \10\ Id. at 1349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Remand Order and Reconsideration Order, Commerce 
issued its Final Redetermination, which addressed the Court's holdings 
and revised the net countervailable subsidy rate assigned to POSCO to 
3.72 percent.\11\ On November 8, 2019, the Court sustained Commerce's 
Final Redetermination and entered final judgment.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order, Consol. Court No. 17-00137, dated July 1, 2019 (Final 
Redetermination).
    \12\ See POSCO v. United States, Slip Op. 18-169, Consol. Ct. 
No. 17-00137 (CIT 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\13\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\14\ the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit held that, pursuant to sections 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce 
must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' 
with a Commerce determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries 
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's November 8, 2019, 
judgment sustaining Commerce's Final Redetermination constitutes a 
final decision of that court, which is not in harmony with Commerce's 
Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
publication requirements of Timken. Commerce will continue the 
suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise at issue pending a 
final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F. 2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \14\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F. 3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 20 10) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Determination

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending 
its Final Determination with respect to the net countervailable subsidy 
rate assigned to POSCO. Additionally, because the rate for all other 
producers/exporters not individually investigated was based on the net 
countervailable subsidy rate calculated for POSCO, Commerce is amending 
the all-others rate.\15\ As previously indicated, in accordance with 
the scope of the underlying investigation, this application of POSCO's 
subsidy rate to all other producers/exporters applies only to subject 
CTL plate not within the physical description of cut-to-length carbon 
quality steel plate in the 1999 Korea CVD Order.\16\ The revised net 
countervailable subsidy rates for POSCO, and all other producers/
exporters not individually investigated for the period January 1, 2015, 
through December 31, 2015, are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Final Determination, 82 FR at 16342.
    \16\ See id. n.10 (citing Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 
the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 6587 (December 29, 1999), as amended, 
65 FR 6587 (February 10, 2000) (1999 Korea CVD Order)).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Subsidy
                      Producer/exporter                          rate
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSCO.......................................................        3.72
All Others..................................................        3.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because POSCO does not have a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., 
there have been no final results published in a subsequent 
administrative review for POSCO, Commerce will issue revised cash 
deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 
Effective November 18, 2019, the cash deposit rate applicable to 
entries of subject merchandise exported by POSCO is 3.72 percent. 
Similarly, Commerce will also instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for 
companies covered by the all-others cash deposit rate according to the 
table above, effective November 18, 2019.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(c)(1) and (e)(1), 705(c)(1)(B), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 18, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-25392 Filed 11-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P