Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Amended Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination, Amended Antidumping Duty Order; Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in Part; and Discontinuation of the 2017-18 and 2018-19 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, in Part, 29399-29401 [2020-10491]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Notices circumstances, the export of technology requires additional safeguards to insure that advanced U.S. knowhow is not permitted to end up in the wrong hands. The letter of assurance puts the consignee on notice that the technology is subject to U.S. export controls and causes the consignee to certify that it will not release the data or the direct product of the data to certain specified countries; thus providing assurance that U.S. national security data will be safeguarded. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. Frequency: On occasion. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. Legal Authority: Export Control Reform Act 4812(b) and 4814(b)(1)(B). This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view the Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/ public/do/PRAMain. Find this information collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or by using the search function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number 0694–0047. Sheleen Dumas, Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Commerce Department. [FR Doc. 2020–10466 Filed 5–14–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–33–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES [A–489–826] Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Amended Final Determination in the Less-ThanFair-Value Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination, Amended Antidumping Duty Order; Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in Part; and Discontinuation of the 2017–18 and 2018–19 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, in Part Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 sustained the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) third remand redetermination pertaining to the lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT’s final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce’s Amended Final Determination in the LTFV investigation of hot-rolled steel from Turkey. Pursuant to the CIT’s final judgment, Commerce is amending the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Ereg˘li Demir ve C ¸ elik Fabrikalari T.A.S ¸ . and Iskenderun Demir Ve Celik (collectively, Erdemir) and C ¸ olakog˘lu Metalurji A.S. and C ¸ olakog˘lu Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively, C ¸ olakog˘lu), and excluding C ¸ olakog˘lu from the Order. Further, Commerce is discontinuing, in part, the 2017–18 and 2018–19 administrative reviews with respect to C ¸ olakog˘lu. DATES: Applicable April 23, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1398. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 12, 2016, Commerce published its Final Determination in the LTFV investigation of hot-rolled steel from Turkey.1 Subsequently, on October 3, 2016, Commerce published its Amended Final Determination and Order.2 As reflected in Commerce’s Amended Final Determination, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 6.77 percent for C ¸ olakog˘lu, 4.15 percent for Erdemir, and 6.41 percent for all other producers and exporters of subject merchandise.3 C ¸ olakog˘lu and Erdemir appealed Commerce’s Final Determination, as amended by the Amended Final Determination, to the CIT. On March 22, 2018, the CIT remanded the Amended Final Determination for Commerce to explain or reconsider: (1) Its treatment 1 See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 53428 (August 12, 2016) (Final Determination), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determinations for Australia, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 67962 (October 3, 2016) (Amended Final Determination and Order). 3 Id., 81 FR at 67965. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 29399 of Erdemir’s home market date of sale; (2) C ¸ olakog˘lu’s request for a duty drawback adjustment; and (3) Commerce’s rejection of C ¸ olakog˘lu’s corrections to international ocean freight expenses presented at verification.4 On July 20, 2018, Commerce issued its first results of redetermination, in which it determined to: (1) Use the ‘‘click date’’ of the proforma invoice as the date of sale for Erdemir’s home market sales; (2) grant C ¸ olakog˘lu’s request for a duty drawback adjustment; and (3) continue to reject C ¸ olakog˘lu’s corrections to its reported international ocean freight expenses, which were presented at verification.5 As a result of the changes in the First Redetermination, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 5.70 percent for C ¸ olakog˘lu, 2.73 percent for Erdemir, and 5.29 percent for all other producers and exporters of subject merchandise.6 On December 27, 2018, in its Second Remand Order, the CIT sustained Commerce’s revised home market date of sale for Erdemir and its determination not to accept corrections to C ¸ olakog˘lu’s international ocean freight expenses that had been presented at verification, and remanded Commerce’s methodology for calculating C ¸ olakog˘lu’s duty drawback adjustment.7 Specifically, the CIT found that Commerce’s calculation methodology of allocating exempted duties over the total cost of sales for hotrolled steel to calculate C ¸ olakog˘lu’s duty drawback adjustment was inconsistent with the statute.8 On June 3, 2019, Commerce issued its second results of redetermination, in which we increased C ¸ olakog˘lu’s U.S. price by the full amount of duties that were drawn back or forgiven and then added the same per-unit duty amount to normal value as a circumstance of sale adjustment.9 As a result of the changes to our duty drawback methodology in the Second Redetermination, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 6.27 percent for C ¸ olakog˘lu, and 5.79 percent for all other 4 See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (CIT 2018). 5 See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S., et al. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 16–00218, Slip Op. 18–27 Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, dated July 20, 2018 (First Redetermination). 6 See First Redetermination at 16. 7 See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (CIT 2018) (Second Remand Order). 8 See Second Remand Order at 16; see also Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 16–00218, Slip Op. 18–180 Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Second Court Remand, dated June 3, 2019 (Second Redetermination) at 5, 13–16. 9 Id. at 16. E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM 15MYN1 29400 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Notices producers and exporters of subject merchandise.10 On October 29, 2019, in its Third Remand Order, the CIT ordered Commerce to recalculate normal value without making a circumstance of sale adjustment related to the duty drawback adjustment made to U.S. price.11 On January 27, 2020, in the third results of redetermination, Commerce did not make a circumstance of sale adjustment to normal value to reflect the difference between the amount of import duties reflected in C ¸ olakog˘lu’s reported costs of production and the amount of import duties that the Court directed Commerce to recognize as the basis for a duty drawback adjustment to U.S. price.12 In addition, Commerce corrected the unit of currency that C ¸ olakog˘lu used to report its U.S. duty drawback amount.13 As a result of the changes to our duty drawback methodology in the Third Redetermination, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 0.00 percent for C ¸ olakog˘lu, and 2.73 percent for all other producers and exporters of subject merchandise.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. The CIT’s April 13, 2020 judgment constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with Commerce’s Amended Final Determination.17 Thus, this notice jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 10 Id. 11 See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1216 (CIT 2019) (Third Remand Order). 12 See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States Consol. Ct. No. 16–00218, Slip Op. 19–135 (CIT October 29, 2019); see also Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Third Court Remand, dated January 27, 2020 (Third Redetermination) at 6. 13 See Third Redetermination at 6. 14 Id. at 5. 15 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 16 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 17 See Ereg ˘ li Demir ve C ¸ elik Fabrikalari T.A.S ¸ . v. United States, Ct. No. 16–00218, Slip Op. 20–47 (CIT April 13, 2020). 18 See Second Redetermination at 16. 19 As explained in the Third Redetermination, because C ¸ olakog˘lu’s estimated weighted-average dumping margin is now 0.00 percent, its rate is no longer factored in the calculation of the all-others rate. Accordingly, the rate calculated for Erdemir is now the only rate that is not zero, de minimis or VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken and section 516A of the Act. Amended Final Determination Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending its Amended Final Determination. The revised estimated weighted-average dumping margins for the period of investigation July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 are as follows: Exporter or producer Weightedaverage dumping margin (percent) ten days after the CIT’s final decision) at a cash deposit rate of 0.00 percent.23 Discontinued Administrative Reviews As a result of C ¸ olakog˘lu’s exclusion from the Order, Commerce is discontinuing the ongoing 2017–18 and 2018–19 administrative reviews, in part, with respect to C ¸ olakog˘lu.24 Further, Commerce will not initiate a subsequent administrative review of entries of subject merchandise both produced and exported by C ¸ olakog˘lu pursuant to the Order.25 Cash Deposit Requirements for Erdemir and All Other Producers and Exporters Because Erdemir does not have a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there 0.00 have been no final results published in a subsequent administrative review for Erdemir, Commerce will instruct CBP to 2.73 18 collect a cash deposit for estimated 2.73 19 antidumping duties at ad valorem rates equal to the estimated weighted-average Amended Antidumping Duty Order dumping margins listed above for Erdemir and all other producers and Pursuant to section 735(a)(4) of the exporters of the subject merchandise, Act, Commerce ‘‘shall disregard any effective April 23, 2020. Entries of weighted average dumping margin that subject merchandise for all-other is de minimis as defined in section producers and exporters include entries 733(b)(3) of the Act.’’ 20 As a result of of subject merchandise not both this amended final determination, in produced and exported by C ¸ olakog˘lu which Commerce has calculated an (i.e., produced by C ¸ olakog˘lu and estimated weighted-average dumping exported by another party, or exported margin of 0.00 percent for C ¸ olakog˘lu, by C ¸ olakog˘lu and produced by another Commerce is hereby excluding party). merchandise produced and exported by Liquidation of Suspended Entries for C ¸ olakog˘lu from the Order.21 This C¸olakog˘lu exclusion does not apply to merchandise that is not both produced If the CIT’s final judgment is not and exported by C ¸ olakog˘lu.22 appealed, or if appealed and upheld, C ¸ olakog˘lu Metalurji A.S. and C ¸ olakog˘lu Dis Ticaret A.S. ...... Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. and Iskenderun Demir Ve Celik ................................... All Others .................................... Continued Suspension of Entries for C¸olakog˘lu Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation Pursuant to Timken, the suspension of liquidation for entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by C ¸ olakog˘lu will continue during the pendency of the appeals process. Thus, we will continue to instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated entries from C ¸ olakog˘lu that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after April 23, 2020 (i.e., 23 See, e.g., Drill Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with International Trade Commission’s Injury Determination, Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders Pursuant to Court Decision, and Discontinuation of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 78037, 78038 (December 29, 2014) (Drill Pipe); see also High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination in Less Than Fair Value Investigation, Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Court Decision, Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in Part, and Discontinuation of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 82 FR 46758, 46760 (October 6, 2017). 24 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 83 FR 63615 (December 11, 2018); see also Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 84 FR 67712 (December 11, 2019). 25 See Drill Pipe, 79 FR at 78038; see also Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation, 80 FR 77316 (December 14, 2015). based entirely on facts available, and as such Erdemir’s rate is now the estimated weightedaverage dumping margin for all other producers and exporters of subject merchandise. See Memorandum, ‘‘Redetermination Pursuant to Remand of Hot-Rolled Steel Products from the Republic of Turkey: Final Remand Calculation Memorandum for the ‘All-Others’ Rate,’’ dated January 27, 2020. 20 Section 733(b)(3) of the Act defines de minimis dumping margin as ‘‘less than 2 percent ad valorem or the equivalent specific rate for the subject merchandise.’’ 21 See Third Redetermination at 7. 22 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM 15MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Notices and to liquidate entries produced and exported by C ¸ olakog˘lu without regard to antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and (e), 735(d), 736(a), 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 11, 2020. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Scope of the Order The products covered by the Orders are stainless sheet and strip, whether in coils or straight lengths. For a full description of the scope of the Orders, see the ‘‘Scope of the Orders,’’ in the Appendix to this notice. [FR Doc. 2020–10491 Filed 5–14–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–042, C–570–043] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention and Scope Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: Based on available information, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is self-initiating a country-wide anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether imports of stainless steel sheet and strip (stainless sheet and strip), completed in Vietnam using certain stainless steel flat-rolled inputs manufactured in the People’s Republic of China (China), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on stainless sheet and strip from China (collectively, the Orders). Commerce is also self-initiating a scope inquiry to determine whether stainless sheet and strip that is produced in China and undergoes further processing in Vietnam before being exported to the United States is subject to the Orders. DATES: Applicable May 15, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Wiltse at (202) 482–6345, AD/ CVD Operations, or Barb Rawdon at (202) 482–0474, Office of Policy, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: Background On February 12, 2016, AK Steel Corporation, Allegheny Ludlum, LLC D/ B/A ATI Flat Rolled Products, North American Stainless, and Outokumpu VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 May 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 Stainless USA, LLC filed petitions seeking the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of stainless sheet and strip from China.1 Following Commerce’s affirmative determinations of dumping and countervailable subsidies,2 and the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (USITC) finding of material injury,3 Commerce issued AD and CVD orders on imports of stainless sheet and strip from China.4 Merchandise Subject to the AntiCircumvention Inquiry The anti-circumvention inquiry covers stainless sheet and strip completed in Vietnam using certain non-subject stainless steel flat-rolled inputs of Chinese-origin that is subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States. Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry Section 781(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that Commerce may find circumvention of an AD or CVD order when merchandise of the same class or kind subject to the order is completed or assembled in a foreign country other than the country to which the order applies. In conducting anticircumvention inquiries, under section 781(b)(1) of the Act, Commerce relies on 1 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Less-ThanFair-Value Investigation, 81 FR 12711 (March 10, 2016); see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 81 FR 13322 (March 14, 2016). 2 See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 9716 (February 8, 2017); see also Countervailing Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, 82 FR 9714 (February 8, 2017). 3 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from China; Determinations, 82 FR 15716 (March 30, 2017); see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from China, Inv. Nos. 791–TA–557 and 731–TA–1312, USITC Pub. 4676 (March 2017) (Final). 4 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 82 FR 16160 (April 3, 2017) (AD Order); see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 82 FR 16166 (April 3, 2017) (CVD Order) (collectively, Orders). PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 29401 the following criteria: (A) Merchandise imported into the United States is of the same class or kind as any merchandise produced in a foreign country that is the subject of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or finding, (B) before importation into the United States, such imported merchandise is completed or assembled in another foreign country from merchandise which is subject to the order or merchandise which is produced in the foreign country that is subject to the order, (C) the process of assembly or completion in the foreign country referred to in section (B) is minor or insignificant, (D) the value of the merchandise produced in the foreign country to which the AD or CVD order applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States, and (E) the administering authority determines that action is appropriate to prevent evasion of such order or finding. In determining whether or not the process of assembly or completion in a third country is minor or insignificant under section 781(b)(1)(C) of the Act, section 781(b)(2) of the Act directs Commerce to consider: (A) The level of investment in the foreign country, (B) the level of research and development in the foreign country, (C) the nature of the production process in the foreign country, (D) the extent of production facilities in the foreign country, and (E) whether or not the value of processing performed in the foreign country represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise imported into the United States. However, no single factor, by itself, controls Commerce’s determination of whether the process of assembly or completion in a third country is minor or insignificant.5 Accordingly, it is Commerce’s practice to evaluate each of these five factors as they exist in the third country, depending on the totality of the circumstances of the particular anticircumvention inquiry.6 Furthermore, section 781(b)(3) of the Act sets forth additional factors to consider in determining whether to include merchandise assembled or completed in a third country within the scope of an antidumping and/or countervailing duty order. Specifically, Commerce shall take into account such 5 See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (SAA), H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 (1994) at 893. 6 See Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 83 FR 65626 (December 21, 2018), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4. E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM 15MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29399-29401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10491]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-826]


Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Turkey: Notice of 
Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Amended Final Determination in 
the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation; Notice of Amended Final 
Determination, Amended Antidumping Duty Order; Notice of Revocation of 
Antidumping Duty Order in Part; and Discontinuation of the 2017-18 and 
2018-19 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, in Part

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

SUMMARY: On April 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 
sustained the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) third remand 
redetermination pertaining to the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled 
steel) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). Commerce is notifying the 
public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's 
Amended Final Determination in the LTFV investigation of hot-rolled 
steel from Turkey. Pursuant to the CIT's final judgment, Commerce is 
amending the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for 
Ere[gbreve]li Demir ve [Ccedil]elik Fabrikalari T.A.[Scedil]. and 
Iskenderun Demir Ve Celik (collectively, Erdemir) and 
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu Metalurji A.S. and [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu Dis 
Ticaret A.S. (collectively, [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu), and excluding 
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu from the Order. Further, Commerce is 
discontinuing, in part, the 2017-18 and 2018-19 administrative reviews 
with respect to [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu.

DATES: Applicable April 23, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 12, 2016, Commerce published its Final Determination in 
the LTFV investigation of hot-rolled steel from Turkey.\1\ 
Subsequently, on October 3, 2016, Commerce published its Amended Final 
Determination and Order.\2\ As reflected in Commerce's Amended Final 
Determination, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping 
margins of 6.77 percent for [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu, 4.15 percent for 
Erdemir, and 6.41 percent for all other producers and exporters of 
subject merchandise.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic 
of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 
FR 53428 (August 12, 2016) (Final Determination), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    \2\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, 
Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic 
of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Amended Final Affirmative 
Antidumping Determinations for Australia, the Republic of Korea, and 
the Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 67962 
(October 3, 2016) (Amended Final Determination and Order).
    \3\ Id., 81 FR at 67965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu and Erdemir appealed Commerce's Final 
Determination, as amended by the Amended Final Determination, to the 
CIT. On March 22, 2018, the CIT remanded the Amended Final 
Determination for Commerce to explain or reconsider: (1) Its treatment 
of Erdemir's home market date of sale; (2) [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's 
request for a duty drawback adjustment; and (3) Commerce's rejection of 
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's corrections to international ocean freight 
expenses presented at verification.\4\ On July 20, 2018, Commerce 
issued its first results of redetermination, in which it determined to: 
(1) Use the ``click date'' of the pro-forma invoice as the date of sale 
for Erdemir's home market sales; (2) grant [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's 
request for a duty drawback adjustment; and (3) continue to reject 
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's corrections to its reported international 
ocean freight expenses, which were presented at verification.\5\ As a 
result of the changes in the First Redetermination, Commerce calculated 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 5.70 percent for 
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu, 2.73 percent for Erdemir, and 5.29 percent for 
all other producers and exporters of subject merchandise.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United 
States, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (CIT 2018).
    \5\ See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S., et al. v. 
United States, Consol. Ct. No. 16-00218, Slip Op. 18-27 Final 
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, dated July 20, 2018 
(First Redetermination).
    \6\ See First Redetermination at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 27, 2018, in its Second Remand Order, the CIT sustained 
Commerce's revised home market date of sale for Erdemir and its 
determination not to accept corrections to [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's 
international ocean freight expenses that had been presented at 
verification, and remanded Commerce's methodology for calculating 
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's duty drawback adjustment.\7\ Specifically, 
the CIT found that Commerce's calculation methodology of allocating 
exempted duties over the total cost of sales for hot-rolled steel to 
calculate [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's duty drawback adjustment was 
inconsistent with the statute.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United 
States, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (CIT 2018) (Second Remand Order).
    \8\ See Second Remand Order at 16; see also Eregli Demir ve 
Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 16-00218, 
Slip Op. 18-180 Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Second 
Court Remand, dated June 3, 2019 (Second Redetermination) at 5, 13-
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 2019, Commerce issued its second results of 
redetermination, in which we increased [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's U.S. 
price by the full amount of duties that were drawn back or forgiven and 
then added the same per-unit duty amount to normal value as a 
circumstance of sale adjustment.\9\ As a result of the changes to our 
duty drawback methodology in the Second Redetermination, Commerce 
calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 6.27 percent 
for [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu, and 5.79 percent for all other

[[Page 29400]]

producers and exporters of subject merchandise.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 16.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 29, 2019, in its Third Remand Order, the CIT ordered 
Commerce to recalculate normal value without making a circumstance of 
sale adjustment related to the duty drawback adjustment made to U.S. 
price.\11\ On January 27, 2020, in the third results of 
redetermination, Commerce did not make a circumstance of sale 
adjustment to normal value to reflect the difference between the amount 
of import duties reflected in [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's reported costs 
of production and the amount of import duties that the Court directed 
Commerce to recognize as the basis for a duty drawback adjustment to 
U.S. price.\12\ In addition, Commerce corrected the unit of currency 
that [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu used to report its U.S. duty drawback 
amount.\13\ As a result of the changes to our duty drawback methodology 
in the Third Redetermination, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-
average dumping margins of 0.00 percent for [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu, 
and 2.73 percent for all other producers and exporters of subject 
merchandise.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United 
States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1216 (CIT 2019) (Third Remand Order).
    \12\ See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United 
States Consol. Ct. No. 16-00218, Slip Op. 19-135 (CIT October 29, 
2019); see also Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Third 
Court Remand, dated January 27, 2020 (Third Redetermination) at 6.
    \13\ See Third Redetermination at 6.
    \14\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The CIT's April 13, 
2020 judgment constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in 
harmony with Commerce's Amended Final Determination.\17\ 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 Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
    \17\ See Ere[gbreve]li Demir ve [Ccedil]elik Fabrikalari 
T.A.[Scedil]. v. United States, Ct. No. 16-00218, Slip Op. 20-47 
(CIT April 13, 2020).
    \18\ See Second Redetermination at 16.
    \19\ As explained in the Third Redetermination, because 
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's estimated weighted-average dumping margin 
is now 0.00 percent, its rate is no longer factored in the 
calculation of the all-others rate. Accordingly, the rate calculated 
for Erdemir is now the only rate that is not zero, de minimis or 
based entirely on facts available, and as such Erdemir's rate is now 
the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other 
producers and exporters of subject merchandise. See Memorandum, 
``Redetermination Pursuant to Remand of Hot-Rolled Steel Products 
from the Republic of Turkey: Final Remand Calculation Memorandum for 
the `All-Others' Rate,'' dated January 27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Determination

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending 
its Amended Final Determination. The revised estimated weighted-average 
dumping margins for the period of investigation July 1, 2014 through 
June 30, 2015 are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                    Exporter or producer                        dumping
                                                                margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu Metalurji A.S. and                          0.00
 [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu Dis Ticaret A.S....................
Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. and Iskenderun        2.73 \18\
 Demir Ve Celik.............................................
All Others..................................................   2.73 \19\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Antidumping Duty Order

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(4) of the Act, Commerce ``shall 
disregard any weighted average dumping margin that is de minimis as 
defined in section 733(b)(3) of the Act.'' \20\ As a result of this 
amended final determination, in which Commerce has calculated an 
estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent for 
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu, Commerce is hereby excluding merchandise 
produced and exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu from the Order.\21\ 
This exclusion does not apply to merchandise that is not both produced 
and exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Section 733(b)(3) of the Act defines de minimis dumping 
margin as ``less than 2 percent ad valorem or the equivalent 
specific rate for the subject merchandise.''
    \21\ See Third Redetermination at 7.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continued Suspension of Entries for [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu

    Pursuant to Timken, the suspension of liquidation for entries of 
subject merchandise produced and exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu 
will continue during the pendency of the appeals process. Thus, we will 
continue to instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated 
entries from [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption after April 23, 2020 (i.e., ten days 
after the CIT's final decision) at a cash deposit rate of 0.00 
percent.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., Drill Pipe from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with International Trade 
Commission's Injury Determination, Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders Pursuant to Court Decision, and 
Discontinuation of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 
78037, 78038 (December 29, 2014) (Drill Pipe); see also High 
Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination in Less 
Than Fair Value Investigation, Notice of Amended Final Determination 
Pursuant to Court Decision, Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty 
Order in Part, and Discontinuation of Fifth Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 82 FR 46758, 46760 (October 6, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discontinued Administrative Reviews

    As a result of [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's exclusion from the Order, 
Commerce is discontinuing the ongoing 2017-18 and 2018-19 
administrative reviews, in part, with respect to 
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu.\24\ Further, Commerce will not initiate a 
subsequent administrative review of entries of subject merchandise both 
produced and exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu pursuant to the 
Order.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 83 FR 63615 (December 11, 2018); see also 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 84 FR 67712 (December 11, 2019).
    \25\ See Drill Pipe, 79 FR at 78038; see also Certain Steel 
Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Court Decision Not in 
Harmony with the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination 
of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation, 80 FR 77316 (December 14, 
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements for Erdemir and All Other Producers and 
Exporters

    Because Erdemir does not have a superseding cash deposit rate, 
i.e., there have been no final results published in a subsequent 
administrative review for Erdemir, Commerce will instruct CBP to 
collect a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties at ad valorem 
rates equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed 
above for Erdemir and all other producers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise, effective April 23, 2020. Entries of subject merchandise 
for all-other producers and exporters include entries of subject 
merchandise not both produced and exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu 
(i.e., produced by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu and exported by another 
party, or exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu and produced by another 
party).

Liquidation of Suspended Entries for [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu

    If the CIT's final judgment is not appealed, or if appealed and 
upheld, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of 
liquidation

[[Page 29401]]

and to liquidate entries produced and exported by 
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu without regard to antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(c)(1) and (e), 735(d), 736(a), 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 11, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-10491 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P