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