Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Amended Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, and Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Antidumping Duty Order, 19437-19438 [2020-07295]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices
or exporters will continue to be 23.21
percent, the all-others rate established
in the Order. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this POR.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in Commerce’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties has occurred and
the subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Order (APO)
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as
a reminder to parties subject to APO of
their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under the APO,
which continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return or 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 subject to sanction.
Notification to Interested Parties
We intend to issue and publish these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: April 1, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020–07293 Filed 4–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
[A–580–876]
Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With the Amended Final
Determination in the Less-Than-FairValue Investigation, and Notice of
Amended Final Determination and
Amended Antidumping Duty Order
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 24, 2020, the U.S.
Court of International Trade (CIT)
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:22 Apr 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
sustained the Department of
Commerce’s (Commerce’s) second
remand redetermination pertaining to
the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation of welded line pipe (WLP)
from the Republic of Korea (Korea).
Commerce is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in
harmony with Commerce’s amended
final determination in the LTFV
investigation of WLP from Korea and
that Commerce is amending the
amended final determination and
antidumping duty order with respect to
the weighted-average dumping margin
for Hyundai HYSCO Co. Ltd. (Hyundai
HYSCO).
DATES: Applicable April 3, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Goldberger or Joshua Tucker, 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) 482–4136 and (202) 482–2044,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 13, 2015, Commerce
published its Final Determination in the
LTFV investigation of WLP from Korea.1
Subsequently, on November 10, 2015,
Commerce published its Amended Final
Determination.2 On December 1, 2015,
Commerce published the Order
resulting from the investigation.3 As
reflected in Commerce’s Amended Final
Determination and Order, Commerce
calculated weighted-average dumping
margins of 6.23 percent for Hyundai
HYSCO, 2.53 percent for SeAH Steel
Corporation (SeAH), the other
mandatory respondent in the
investigation, and 4.38 percent for all
others.4
Hyundai HYSCO, SeAH, and the
petitioners 5 appealed Commerce’s Final
Determination, as amended by the
Amended Final Determination, and
1 See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of
Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 80 FR 61366 (October 13, 2015) (Final
Determination), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (IDM).
2 See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of
Korea: Amended Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 69637 (November 10,
2015) (Amended Final Determination).
3 See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of
Korea and the Republic of Turkey: Antidumping
Duty Orders, 80 FR 75056 (December 1, 2015)
(Order).
4 See Amended Final Determination, 80 FR at
69638; see also Order, 80 FR at 75057.
5 The petitioners are: Stupp Corporation, a
division of Stupp Bros., Inc., TMK IPSCO, Welspun
Tubular LLC USA, and Maverick Tube Corporation
(Maverick).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19437
resulting Order to the CIT. On January
8, 2019, the CIT remanded for
Commerce to explain or reconsider its
decision to include certain ‘‘local sales’’
in Hyundai HYSCO’s home market sales
database.6 Separately, the CIT held that
Commerce’s rejection of Maverick’s
September 8, 2015 supplemental case
brief constituted an abuse of discretion,
and remanded for Commerce to review
and determine which portions should
be retained on the record.7 On May 2,
2019, Commerce issued the First
Remand Results, in which it determined
that Hyundai HYSCO knew, or should
have known, that certain ‘‘local sales’’
included in its home market database
would be exported without further
processing in Korea.8 Accordingly,
Commerce reclassified these sales and
excluded them from the calculation of
normal value (NV), which resulted in a
recalculated weighted-average dumping
margin of 6.22 percent for Hyundai
HYSCO.9 In addition, Commerce
reopened the administrative record to
permit Maverick to place its September
8, 2015 supplemental case brief on the
record in its entirety, and to permit
other interested parties to submit
rebuttal briefs in response to Maverick’s
supplemental case brief. Consistent with
its practice to determine home market
viability early in a proceeding,
Commerce did not reconsider Hyundai
HYSCO’s home market viability.10
The CIT, however, subsequently held
that, by refusing to reassess the viability
of HYSCO’s home market, ‘‘Commerce
failed to comply with its statutory and
regulatory mandate to ensure the
sufficiency of the home market as a
basis for normal value.’’ 11 On that basis,
it remanded to Commerce to further
explain or reconsider Hyundai HYSCO’s
home market viability.12
On January 14, 2020, Commerce
issued the Second Remand Results in
accordance with the CIT’s order.13 On
remand, Commerce provided further
explanation regarding Hyundai
HYSCO’s home market viability.
Specifically, Commerce explained that
Hyundai HYSCO’s home market sales
quantity was sufficient to permit
Commerce to make a proper comparison
6 See Stupp Corporation et al. v. United States,
359 F. Supp. 3d 1293, 1309–1312 (CIT 2019).
7 Id., 359 F. Supp. 3d. at 1311–12.
8 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 15–00334,
dated May 2, 2019 (First Remand Results).
9 Id. at 13.
10 Id.
11 See Stupp Corporation et al. v. United States,
413 F. Supp. 3d 1326, 1332 (CIT 2019).
12 Id., 413 F. Supp. 3d at 1333.
13 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Second Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 15–
00334 (January 14, 2020) (Second Remand Results).
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
19438
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices
between export price and NV, consistent
with its statutory and regulatory
mandates. On March 24, 2020, the CIT
sustained Commerce’s Second Remand
Results.14
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,15 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,16 the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
held that, pursuant to section 516A of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), Commerce must publish a notice
of court decision that is not ‘‘in
harmony’’ with a Commerce
determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.17 The
CIT’s March 24 2020 judgment
constitutes a final decision of that court
that is not in harmony with Commerce’s
Final Determination, Amended Final
Determination, and Order. Thus, this
notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken and
section 516A of the Act.
Amended Final Determination and
Amended Order
Because there is now a final court
decision, Commerce is amending its
Amended Final Determination and
Order with respect to the weightedaverage dumping margin for Hyundai
HYSCO.18 The revised weighted-average
dumping margin is as follows:
Exporter/producer
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Hyundai HYSCO Co., Ltd .....
6.22
Cash Deposit Requirements
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Because there have been subsequent
administrative reviews for Hyundai
Steel Company (Hyundai Steel), the
successor company to Hyundai
HYSCO,19 the cash deposit rate for
Hyundai Steel will remain the rate
established in the most recently14 See Stupp Corporation et al. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 15–00334, Slip Op. 20–38, dated
March 24, 2020.
15 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
16 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F. 3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
17 See sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act.
18 The change to Hyundai HYSCO’s margin did
not affect the calculation of the all-others rate. See
First Remand Results at 13.
19 As discussed in the Final Determination, and
accompanying IDM at 1, Hyundai HYSCO merged
with Hyundai Steel subsequent to the period of
investigation and Hyundai HYSCO no longer exists.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:22 Apr 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
completed administrative review (i.e.,
29.89 percent).20
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and
(e), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 1, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020–07295 Filed 4–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–845]
Sugar From Mexico: Final Results of
the Expedited First Sunset Review of
the Agreement Suspending the
Antidumping Duty Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: As a result of this sunset
review, the Department of Commerce
(Commerce) finds that termination of
the Agreement Suspending the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on
Sugar from Mexico (Agreement) and the
suspended antidumping duty (AD)
investigation would be likely to lead to
the continuation or recurrence of
dumping at the levels indicated in the
‘‘Final Results of Sunset Reviews’’
section of this notice. The magnitude of
the dumping margin likely to prevail is
indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of
Review’’ section of this notice.
DATES: Applicable April 7, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sally C. Gannon, Bilateral Agreements,
Office of Policy, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–0162.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On December 3, 2019, Commerce
published the notice of initiation of the
first sunset review of the agreement
suspending the antidumping
investigation on sugar from Mexico,
pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
20 See Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of
Korea: Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2016–2017, 84 FR
35371, 35372 (July 23, 2019).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Act).1 We received notice of intent to
participate in the review from the
following parties, both domestic
interested parties: Imperial Sugar
Company and the American Sugar
Coalition (‘‘ASC’’).2 Commerce received
complete substantive responses from the
domestic interested parties within the
30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(i).3 We rejected untimely
submissions filed by Sweetener Users
Association (SUA) on January 21, 2020
and January 23, 2020.4 We received no
substantive responses from any other
interested parties, nor was a hearing
requested. As a result, pursuant to
section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce
conducted an expedited (120-day)
sunset review of the Agreement and
suspended investigation.5
Scope of the Agreement
The merchandise subject to the
Agreement is raw and refined sugar of
all polarimeter readings derived from
sugar cane or sugar beets. The chemical
sucrose gives sugar its essential
character. Sucrose is a nonreducing
disaccharide composed of glucose and
fructose linked by a glycosidic bond via
their anomeric carbons. The molecular
formula for sucrose is C12H22O11; the
International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)
International Chemical Identifier (InChl)
for sucrose is 1S/C12H22O11/c13-l-46(16)8(18)9(19)11(21-4)23-12(315)10(20)7(17) 5(2-14)22-12/h4-11,1320H,1-3H2/t4-,5-,6-,7-,8+,9-,10+,11,12+/m1/s1; the InChl Key for sucrose is
CZMRCDWAGMRECN-UGDNZRGBSAN; the U.S. National Institutes of Health
PubChem Compound Identifier (CID) for
sucrose is 5988; and the Chemical
1 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 84
FR 58687 (November 1, 2019); Initiation of FiveYear (Sunset) Review; Correction, 84 FR 66153
(December 3, 2019).
2 See Letter, ‘‘Sugar from Mexico: Notice of Intent
to Participate’’, dated December 18, 2019; Letter,
‘‘Sugar from Mexico, Case Nos. C–201–846 and A–
201–845 (Five-Year Sunset Reviews): Notice of
Intent to Participate’’, dated December 18, 2019.
3 See Letter, American Sugar Coalition, ‘‘Sugar
from Mexico: Substantive Response to Notice of
Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews of the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Suspension
Agreements,’’ dated January 2, 2020; Letter, ‘‘Sugar
from Mexico: Substantive Response of the Imperial
Sugar Company to Commerce’s Notice of Initiation
of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews’’, dated January 2,
2020.
4 See Letter to Wilbur Ross, Secretary of
Commerce, from Sweetener Users Association. re:
‘‘Sugar from Mexico’’ (January 21, 2020); Letter to
Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce, from
Sweetener Users Association, re: ‘‘Sugar from
Mexico’’ (January 23, 2020); Letter, ‘‘Rejection on
January 21 and January 23 Filings’’, dated February
5, 2020.
5 See Letter, ‘‘Sunset Reviews Initiated on
December 2, 2019’’, dated January 22, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19437-19438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07295]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-876]
Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the Amended Final Determination in the
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, and Notice of Amended Final
Determination and Amended Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)
sustained the Department of Commerce's (Commerce's) second remand
redetermination pertaining to the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation of welded line pipe (WLP) from the Republic of Korea
(Korea). Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in
this case is not in harmony with Commerce's amended final determination
in the LTFV investigation of WLP from Korea and that Commerce is
amending the amended final determination and antidumping duty order
with respect to the weighted-average dumping margin for Hyundai HYSCO
Co. Ltd. (Hyundai HYSCO).
DATES: Applicable April 3, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Joshua Tucker, 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) 482-4136 and (202)
482-2044, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 13, 2015, Commerce published its Final Determination in
the LTFV investigation of WLP from Korea.\1\ Subsequently, on November
10, 2015, Commerce published its Amended Final Determination.\2\ On
December 1, 2015, Commerce published the Order resulting from the
investigation.\3\ As reflected in Commerce's Amended Final
Determination and Order, Commerce calculated weighted-average dumping
margins of 6.23 percent for Hyundai HYSCO, 2.53 percent for SeAH Steel
Corporation (SeAH), the other mandatory respondent in the
investigation, and 4.38 percent for all others.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 61366 (October
13, 2015) (Final Determination), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 69637
(November 10, 2015) (Amended Final Determination).
\3\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the
Republic of Turkey: Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 FR 75056 (December
1, 2015) (Order).
\4\ See Amended Final Determination, 80 FR at 69638; see also
Order, 80 FR at 75057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai HYSCO, SeAH, and the petitioners \5\ appealed Commerce's
Final Determination, as amended by the Amended Final Determination, and
resulting Order to the CIT. On January 8, 2019, the CIT remanded for
Commerce to explain or reconsider its decision to include certain
``local sales'' in Hyundai HYSCO's home market sales database.\6\
Separately, the CIT held that Commerce's rejection of Maverick's
September 8, 2015 supplemental case brief constituted an abuse of
discretion, and remanded for Commerce to review and determine which
portions should be retained on the record.\7\ On May 2, 2019, Commerce
issued the First Remand Results, in which it determined that Hyundai
HYSCO knew, or should have known, that certain ``local sales'' included
in its home market database would be exported without further
processing in Korea.\8\ Accordingly, Commerce reclassified these sales
and excluded them from the calculation of normal value (NV), which
resulted in a recalculated weighted-average dumping margin of 6.22
percent for Hyundai HYSCO.\9\ In addition, Commerce reopened the
administrative record to permit Maverick to place its September 8, 2015
supplemental case brief on the record in its entirety, and to permit
other interested parties to submit rebuttal briefs in response to
Maverick's supplemental case brief. Consistent with its practice to
determine home market viability early in a proceeding, Commerce did not
reconsider Hyundai HYSCO's home market viability.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The petitioners are: Stupp Corporation, a division of Stupp
Bros., Inc., TMK IPSCO, Welspun Tubular LLC USA, and Maverick Tube
Corporation (Maverick).
\6\ See Stupp Corporation et al. v. United States, 359 F. Supp.
3d 1293, 1309-1312 (CIT 2019).
\7\ Id., 359 F. Supp. 3d. at 1311-12.
\8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Consol. Court No. 15-00334, dated May 2, 2019 (First Remand
Results).
\9\ Id. at 13.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT, however, subsequently held that, by refusing to reassess
the viability of HYSCO's home market, ``Commerce failed to comply with
its statutory and regulatory mandate to ensure the sufficiency of the
home market as a basis for normal value.'' \11\ On that basis, it
remanded to Commerce to further explain or reconsider Hyundai HYSCO's
home market viability.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Stupp Corporation et al. v. United States, 413 F. Supp.
3d 1326, 1332 (CIT 2019).
\12\ Id., 413 F. Supp. 3d at 1333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 14, 2020, Commerce issued the Second Remand Results in
accordance with the CIT's order.\13\ On remand, Commerce provided
further explanation regarding Hyundai HYSCO's home market viability.
Specifically, Commerce explained that Hyundai HYSCO's home market sales
quantity was sufficient to permit Commerce to make a proper comparison
[[Page 19438]]
between export price and NV, consistent with its statutory and
regulatory mandates. On March 24, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce's
Second Remand Results.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Second
Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 15-00334 (January 14, 2020) (Second
Remand Results).
\14\ See Stupp Corporation et al. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 15-00334, Slip Op. 20-38, dated March 24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\15\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\16\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that,
pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not ``in
harmony'' with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of
entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision.\17\ The CIT's March 24
2020 judgment constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in
harmony with Commerce's Final Determination, Amended Final
Determination, and Order. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment
of the publication requirements of Timken and section 516A of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\16\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F. 3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
\17\ See sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Determination and Amended Order
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending
its Amended Final Determination and Order with respect to the weighted-
average dumping margin for Hyundai HYSCO.\18\ The revised weighted-
average dumping margin is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The change to Hyundai HYSCO's margin did not affect the
calculation of the all-others rate. See First Remand Results at 13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter/producer dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai HYSCO Co., Ltd.................................. 6.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for
Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel), the successor company to Hyundai
HYSCO,\19\ the cash deposit rate for Hyundai Steel will remain the rate
established in the most recently-completed administrative review (i.e.,
29.89 percent).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As discussed in the Final Determination, and accompanying
IDM at 1, Hyundai HYSCO merged with Hyundai Steel subsequent to the
period of investigation and Hyundai HYSCO no longer exists.
\20\ See Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Amended
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017,
84 FR 35371, 35372 (July 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c)(1) and (e), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 1, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-07295 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
