Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Second Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 31451-31452 [2020-11205]

Download as PDF 31451 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 26, 2020 / Notices 232 PROCESS STATISTICS—OBJECTION RATE BY STEEL HTSUS, AS OF 3/23/20—Continued HTSUS code HTS description 7306195110 .......... LINE PIPE (OIL/GAS PIPELINES) ALLOY STL, WELDED/RIVETED/SIM CLOSED, OUTSIDE DIAM. OTHER TUBING (OIL/GAS DRILLING) OTH ALLOY STL, WELDED/RIVETED/SIMILARLY CLOSED, IMPORTED WITH COUPLING. 7306298110 .......... Requests with objections Requests Objection Rate (%) Volume requested (mt) Volume with objections (mt) Volume objection rate (%) Percent granted despite objection * 3 3 100 60 60 100 0 2 2 100 573 573 100 0 * Percent of requests granted despite receiving one or more objections, out of the total number of requests with objections and rendered decisions. Annex 4: Aluminum HTS Codes With 100% Objection Rates 232 PROCESS STATISTICS—OBJECTION RATE BY ALUMINUM HTSUS, AS OF 3/23/20 HTSUS code HTS description 7606123055 .......... ALUMINUM ALLOY CAN STOCK, NOT CLAD, LID STOCK. Requests with objections Requests 3 Objection rate (%) 3 100 Volume requested (mt) 45,000 Volume with objections (mt) 45,000 Volume objection rate (%) Percent granted despite objection * 100 33 * Percent of requests granted despite receiving one or more objections, out of the total number of requests with objections and rendered decisions. [FR Doc. 2020–11173 Filed 5–22–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–33–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–967; C–570–968] Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Second Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 22, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the CAFC) reversed and remanded the Court of International Trade’s (CIT) earlier decision regarding the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) scope ruling under the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China (China) involving Meridian Products, LLC’s (Meridian’s) Type B door handles. The CAFC instructed the CIT to vacate Commerce’s initial remand redetermination that the CIT had previously sustained, reinstate Commerce’s original scope ruling, and remand for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In the original scope ruling, Commerce found that Meridian’s Type B door handles were covered by the scope of the AD and CVD orders. In Commerce’s redetermination upon remand from the CAFC, Commerce found that the AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:08 May 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 extruded aluminum component of each Type B handle is within the scope of the AD and CVD orders while the other components (plastic end caps and screws) are not. On April 6, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination. Accordingly, Commerce is issuing a second amended final scope ruling. DATES: Applicable May 26, 2020. Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6071. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 21, 2013, Commerce issued a final scope ruling in which it determined that three types of kitchen appliance door handles (Types A, B, and C) imported by Meridian are within the scope of the Orders 1 and do not meet the scope exclusions for ‘‘finished merchandise’’ and ‘‘finished goods kits.’’ 2 Meridian challenged 1 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011); Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011) (collectively, Orders). 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen Appliance Door Handles,’’ dated June 21, 2013 (Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling) at 12–15. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Commerce’s final scope ruling at the CIT. On December 7, 2015, the CIT affirmed, in part, Commerce’s Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling finding that Meridian’s Type A handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion) and Type C handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion packed as a ‘‘kit’’ with a tool and an instruction manual) are within the scope of the Orders based on a plain reading of the scope language.3 The CIT, however, remanded Commerce’s determination that Meridian’s Type B handles are also within the scope of the Orders. The CIT also instructed Commerce to provide clarification on its scope ruling in view of the CIT’s decision that Type B handles are ‘‘assemblies’’ not within the scope of orders, because the extruded aluminum handles are packaged with two plastic injection molded end caps and two screws.4 The CIT further found that, assuming arguendo that Meridian’s Type B handles were covered by the scope language, Commerce erred in finding that the products did not satisfy the scope’s ‘‘finished merchandise’’ exclusion.5 On March 23, 2016, Commerce issued its Final Results of Redetermination, in which it found, under respectful protest, that Meridian’s Type B handles are not covered by the scope of the Orders, 3 See Meridian Products LLC v. United States, Court No. 13–00246, Slip Op. 15–135 at 6–9. 4 Id. at 10–13. 5 Id. at 13–16. E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM 26MYN1 31452 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 26, 2020 / Notices because the general scope language did not cover such products. As a result, Commerce did not consider whether Meridian’s Type B handles were subject to the exclusion for ‘‘finished merchandise.’’ 6 On July 18, 2016, the CIT sustained Commerce’s findings in the Final Results of Redetermination that Meridian’s Type B handles are not covered by the scope of the Orders.7 Commerce subsequently published notice of the CIT’s decision not in harmony with Commerce’s final scope ruling and notice of amended final scope ruling pursuant to the CIT’s decision.8 The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), the petitioner in the underlying investigations, appealed. On May 22, 2018, the CAFC reversed and remanded the CIT’s final judgement, instructed the CIT to vacate Commerce’s remand redetermination, and ordered the CIT to reinstate Commerce’s original scope ruling and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.9 The CAFC held that Commerce’s original scope ruling determination (i.e., that Type B handles are included within the general scope of the Orders) was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.10 The CAFC remanded for Commerce to clarify whether Type B handles are fully and permanently assembled at the time of entry.11 The CAFC reasoned if Commerce determined that the Type B handles are imported unassembled, the original scope ruling controls, but if Commerce determined that the Type B handles were imported fully and permanently assembled, then Commerce must address whether the Type B handles are excluded from the scope as ‘‘finished merchandise.’’ 12 On May 15, 2019, Commerce issued its Second Remand Redetermination in response to the CAFC’s remand order.13 In the Second Remand Redetermination, 6 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13–00246, Slip Op. 15–135 (CIT December 7, 2015) (Final Results of Redetermination). 7 See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13–00246, Slip Op. 16–71 at 11. 8 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 81 FR 52402 (August 8, 2016). 9 See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 890 F.3d 1272, 1282 (CAFC 2018). 10 Id., 890 F.3d at 1281. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 See Final Results of Second Remand Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 890 F. 3d 1272 (CAFC 2018) (Second Remand Redetermination). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:08 May 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 Commerce determined that the finished merchandise exclusion does not apply to the Type B handles and that the extruded aluminum component of each Type B handle is within the scope of the Orders, while the other components (plastic end caps and screws) are not.14 On April 6, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce’s ruling in the Second Remand Redetermination.15 No party contested Commerce’s Second Remand Redetermination.16 Amended Final Scope Ruling There is now a final court decision with respect to Commerce’s Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling. Therefore, Commerce issues this second amended final scope ruling and finds that the extruded aluminum component of each Type B handle is within the scope of the Orders, while the other components (plastic end caps and screws) are not. Accordingly, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to continue to suspend liquidation of Meridian’s Type B handles until appropriate liquidation instructions are sent. As of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the cash deposit rate for entries of the extruded aluminum component of Meridian’s Type B handles will be the applicable cash deposit rate of the exporters of the merchandise from China to the United States. Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) and (e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: May 18, 2020. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2020–11205 Filed 5–22–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 14 Id. 15 See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13–00246, Slip Op. 20–43 (CIT April 6, 2020). 16 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–894] Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks From India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of forged steel fluid end blocks (fluid end blocks) from India. The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. DATES: Applicable May 26, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Langley or Nicholas Czajkowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3861 or (202) 482–1395, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on January 15, 2020.1 On February 27, 2020, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation to May 18, 2020.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix 1 See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 85 FR 2385 (January 15, 2020) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy and the People’s Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigations, 85 FR 11336 (February 27, 2020). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from India,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM 26MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31451-31452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-967; C-570-968]


Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Second Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

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

SUMMARY: On May 22, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(the CAFC) reversed and remanded the Court of International Trade's 
(CIT) earlier decision regarding the Department of Commerce's 
(Commerce) scope ruling under the antidumping duty (AD) and 
countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China (China) involving Meridian Products, LLC's 
(Meridian's) Type B door handles. The CAFC instructed the CIT to vacate 
Commerce's initial remand redetermination that the CIT had previously 
sustained, reinstate Commerce's original scope ruling, and remand for 
further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In the original scope 
ruling, Commerce found that Meridian's Type B door handles were covered 
by the scope of the AD and CVD orders. In Commerce's redetermination 
upon remand from the CAFC, Commerce found that the extruded aluminum 
component of each Type B handle is within the scope of the AD and CVD 
orders while the other components (plastic end caps and screws) are 
not. On April 6, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce's remand 
redetermination. Accordingly, Commerce is issuing a second amended 
final scope ruling.

DATES: Applicable May 26, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6071.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 21, 2013, Commerce issued a final scope ruling in which it 
determined that three types of kitchen appliance door handles (Types A, 
B, and C) imported by Meridian are within the scope of the Orders \1\ 
and do not meet the scope exclusions for ``finished merchandise'' and 
``finished goods kits.'' \2\ Meridian challenged Commerce's final scope 
ruling at the CIT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011); Aluminum 
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty 
Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011) (collectively, Orders).
    \2\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen 
Appliance Door Handles,'' dated June 21, 2013 (Kitchen Appliance 
Door Handles Scope Ruling) at 12-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 7, 2015, the CIT affirmed, in part, Commerce's Kitchen 
Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling finding that Meridian's Type A 
handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion) and Type C 
handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion packed as a 
``kit'' with a tool and an instruction manual) are within the scope of 
the Orders based on a plain reading of the scope language.\3\ The CIT, 
however, remanded Commerce's determination that Meridian's Type B 
handles are also within the scope of the Orders. The CIT also 
instructed Commerce to provide clarification on its scope ruling in 
view of the CIT's decision that Type B handles are ``assemblies'' not 
within the scope of orders, because the extruded aluminum handles are 
packaged with two plastic injection molded end caps and two screws.\4\ 
The CIT further found that, assuming arguendo that Meridian's Type B 
handles were covered by the scope language, Commerce erred in finding 
that the products did not satisfy the scope's ``finished merchandise'' 
exclusion.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Meridian Products LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-
00246, Slip Op. 15-135 at 6-9.
    \4\ Id. at 10-13.
    \5\ Id. at 13-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 23, 2016, Commerce issued its Final Results of 
Redetermination, in which it found, under respectful protest, that 
Meridian's Type B handles are not covered by the scope of the Orders,

[[Page 31452]]

because the general scope language did not cover such products. As a 
result, Commerce did not consider whether Meridian's Type B handles 
were subject to the exclusion for ``finished merchandise.'' \6\ On July 
18, 2016, the CIT sustained Commerce's findings in the Final Results of 
Redetermination that Meridian's Type B handles are not covered by the 
scope of the Orders.\7\ Commerce subsequently published notice of the 
CIT's decision not in harmony with Commerce's final scope ruling and 
notice of amended final scope ruling pursuant to the CIT's decision.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-00246, 
Slip Op. 15-135 (CIT December 7, 2015) (Final Results of 
Redetermination).
    \7\ See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-
00246, Slip Op. 16-71 at 11.
    \8\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and 
Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 81 
FR 52402 (August 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), the petitioner 
in the underlying investigations, appealed. On May 22, 2018, the CAFC 
reversed and remanded the CIT's final judgement, instructed the CIT to 
vacate Commerce's remand redetermination, and ordered the CIT to 
reinstate Commerce's original scope ruling and remand for further 
proceedings consistent with the opinion.\9\ The CAFC held that 
Commerce's original scope ruling determination (i.e., that Type B 
handles are included within the general scope of the Orders) was 
reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.\10\ The CAFC remanded 
for Commerce to clarify whether Type B handles are fully and 
permanently assembled at the time of entry.\11\ The CAFC reasoned if 
Commerce determined that the Type B handles are imported unassembled, 
the original scope ruling controls, but if Commerce determined that the 
Type B handles were imported fully and permanently assembled, then 
Commerce must address whether the Type B handles are excluded from the 
scope as ``finished merchandise.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 890 F.3d 1272, 
1282 (CAFC 2018).
    \10\ Id., 890 F.3d at 1281.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 15, 2019, Commerce issued its Second Remand Redetermination 
in response to the CAFC's remand order.\13\ In the Second Remand 
Redetermination, Commerce determined that the finished merchandise 
exclusion does not apply to the Type B handles and that the extruded 
aluminum component of each Type B handle is within the scope of the 
Orders, while the other components (plastic end caps and screws) are 
not.\14\ On April 6, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce's ruling in the 
Second Remand Redetermination.\15\ No party contested Commerce's Second 
Remand Redetermination.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Final Results of Second Remand Redetermination Pursuant 
to Court Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 890 F. 3d 
1272 (CAFC 2018) (Second Remand Redetermination).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-
00246, Slip Op. 20-43 (CIT April 6, 2020).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    There is now a final court decision with respect to Commerce's 
Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling. Therefore, Commerce issues 
this second amended final scope ruling and finds that the extruded 
aluminum component of each Type B handle is within the scope of the 
Orders, while the other components (plastic end caps and screws) are 
not.
    Accordingly, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to continue to suspend liquidation of Meridian's Type B 
handles until appropriate liquidation instructions are sent. As of the 
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the cash 
deposit rate for entries of the extruded aluminum component of 
Meridian's Type B handles will be the applicable cash deposit rate of 
the exporters of the merchandise from China to the United States.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) and (e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: May 18, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-11205 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

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