Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Amended Final Results of Review; Amended Final Results of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From the Republic of Turkey, 2014-2015, 51680-51681 [2020-18384]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51680
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 2020 / Notices
• Grade X60, X65, or X70, 20 inches
outside diameter, 0.688 inches or greater
wall thickness;
• Grade X60, X65, X70, or X80, 22
inches outside diameter, 0.750 inches or
greater wall thickness; and
• Grade X60, X65, or X70, 24 inches
outside diameter, 0.750 inches or greater
wall thickness.
The large diameter welded pipe that
is subject to these Orders is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under subheadings 7305.11.1030,
7305.11.1060, 7305.11.5000,
7305.12.1030, 7305.12.1060,
7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030,
7305.19.1060, 7305.19.5000,
7305.31.4000, 7305.31.6090,
7305.39.1000 and 7305.39.5000. While
the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope of
these Orders is dispositive.
Final Results of CCRs
Commerce may modify the scope of
an AD and/or CVD order as a result of
conducting a CCR.10 For the reasons
stated in the Initiation and Preliminary
Results, Commerce continues to find
that it is appropriate to revoke the
Orders, in part, in accordance with
section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.222(g)(1)(i), with respect to certain
large diameter welded pipe products
with specific combinations of grades,
diameters, and wall thicknesses, as
reflected in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’
section of this notice.
We will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to terminate the
suspension of liquidation for all
shipments of the products which are
revoked from the Orders as a result of
these CCRs that were entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. We intend for all entries of the
revoked products that were suspended
on or after the date of publication of this
notice to be liquidated without regard to
antidumping duties (i.e., refund all cash
deposits).
Notification to Interested Parties
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
We are issuing this determination and
publishing these final results and notice
in accordance with sections 751(b)(1)
and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19
10 See
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the
Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom: Notice
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 84 FR 13888 (April 8, 2019);
see also Certain Steel Nails from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 84 FR 49508
(September 20, 2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Aug 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
CFR 351.216(e), 351.221(b),
351.221(c)(3), 351.222(g)(1) and
351.222(g)(4).
Dated: August 13, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020–18385 Filed 8–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–489–501]
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe
and Tube Products From Turkey:
Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With Amended Final Results
of Review; Amended Final Results of
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Welded
Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube
Products From the Republic of Turkey,
2014–2015
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
On July 28, 2020, the U.S.
Court of International Trade (CIT)
sustained the Department of Commerce
(Commerce)’s third remand
redetermination pertaining to the
administrative review of welded carbon
steel standard pipe and tube products
(welded pipe and tube) from the
Republic of Turkey (Turkey) covering
the period of review (POR) May 1, 2014
through April 30, 2015. Commerce is
notifying the public that the CIT’s final
judgment is not in harmony with the
amended final results of the
administrative review, and that
Commerce is amending the weightedaverage dumping margin for Toscelik
Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. (Toscelik).
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Applicable August 7, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael J. Heaney, 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) 482–4475.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 20, 2016, Commerce
published the Final Results in the 2014–
2015 administrative review of welded
pipe and tube from Turkey, in which
Commerce calculated a weightedaverage dumping margin of 1.91
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
percent.1 After correcting ministerial
errors contained in the Final Results, on
February 17, 2017, Commerce published
the Amended Final Results, and
calculated a revised weighted-average
dumping margin of 3.40 percent for
Toscelik.2
Toscelik and the JMC Steel Group (a
domestic interested party) appealed
Commerce’s Final Results, as amended
by the Amended Final Results, to the
CIT. On June 6, 2018, the CIT issued its
First Remand Order, directing
Commerce to: (1) Reconsider the
calculation of Toscelik’s duty drawback
adjustment; and (2) provide further
explanation for granting Toscelik a
circumstance-of-sale adjustment for
warehousing expenses.3 On October 4,
2018, Commerce submitted its final
results of redetermination, recalculating
Toscelik’s duty drawback adjustment,
under respectful protest,4 and providing
further explanation for granting a
circumstance-of-sale adjustment for
warehousing expenses.5
On April 1, 2019, the CIT issued its
Second Remand Order, sustaining
Commerce’s explanation of Toscelik’s
circumstance-of-sale for adjustment for
warehousing expenses, but remanding
Commerce’s modified calculation of
Toscelik’s duty drawback adjustment.6
In particular, the CIT found that
Commerce’s additional circumstance-ofsale adjustment to correct a perceived
imbalance in Toscelik’s dumping
margin calculation ‘‘negates the
statutory duty drawback adjustment that
Toscelik earned by exporting its
finished product to the United States
and impinges on the agency’s ability to
make a fair comparison.’’ 7 On May 30,
2019, Commerce submitted its second
final results of redetermination,
recalculating Toscelik’s duty drawback
adjustment, including a circumstance1 See Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and
Tube Products from Turkey: Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review; 2014–2015,
81 FR 92785 (December 20, 2016) (Final Results),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
2 See Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and
Tube Products from Turkey: Amended Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–
2015, 82 FR 11002 (February 17, 2017) (Amended
Final Results).
3 See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v.
United States, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (CIT 2018)
(First Remand Order) at 17–18.
4 See Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d
1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi
A.S. v. United States, Court No. 17–00018, Slip Op.
18–66 (CIT June 6, 2018).
6 See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v.
United States, 375 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (CIT 2019)
(Second Remand Order).
7 See Second Remand Order, 375 F. Supp. 3d at
1316.
E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM
21AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 2020 / Notices
of-sale adjustment to account for the
imbalance between the amount of
import duties included in U.S. price as
a result of the duty drawback
adjustment and the amount of import
duties reflected in normal value.8
On December 18, 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.9 On
March 13, 2020, in the third results of
redetermination, Commerce granted
Toscelik a duty drawback adjustment,
without making a circumstance-of-sale
adjustment to account for the imbalance
between the U.S. duty drawback
adjustment and the amount of import
duties reflected in normal value.10
Additionally, Commerce added an
imputed cost for import duties to the
cost of production.11 This amount is
based on Toscelik’s cost of
manufacturing during the POR for pipe
and tube and was calculated as the ratio
of the total amount of Toscelik’s
exempted import duties and its cost of
manufacturing during the POR. On July
28, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce’s
third results of redetermination, and
entered final judgment.12
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,13 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,14 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
July 28, 2020, final judgment constitutes
a final decision of the CIT that is not in
harmony with Commerce’s Amended
Final Results.15 Thus, this notice is
8 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi
A.S. v. United States, Court No. 17–00018, Slip Op.
19–41 (CIT April 1, 2019) (Second
Redetermination).
9 See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v.
United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1395 (CIT 2019)
(Third Remand Order).
10 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi
A.S. v. United States, Court No. 17–00018, Slip Op.
19–166 (CIT December 18, 2019) (Third
Redetermination).
11 Id.
12 See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v.
United States, Court No., 17–00018, Slip Op. 20–
105 (CIT July 28, 2020) (CIT Final Judgment).
13 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
14 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers
Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
15 See CIT Final Judgment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Aug 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken and
section 516A of the Act.
Amended Final Results of Review
Because there is now a final court
judgment, Commerce is amending its
Amended Final Results with respect to
Toscelik as follows:
Exporter or producer
Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi
A.S. .........................................
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
0.00
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because Toscelik has a superseding
cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been
final results published in a subsequent
administrative review for Toscelik, this
notice will not affect the current cash
deposit rate for Toscelik.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
If the CIT’s final judgment is not
appealed, or if appealed and upheld,
because Toscelik’s amended weightedaverage dumping margin is zero percent,
Commerce will instruct CBP to
terminate the suspension of liquidation,
and to liquidate and to assess duties at
a rate of zero for entries during the POR
that were produced and exported by
Toscelik.
Consistent with Commerce’s
assessment practice, for entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by Toscelik for which
Toscelik did not know that the
merchandise was destined for the
United States, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction.16
Lastly, at this time, Commerce
remains enjoined by Court order from
liquidating entries that: (1) Were the
subject of the administrative
determination published in the Final
Results, as amended by the Amended
Final Results; 17 (2) were produced and/
or exported by any of the following:
Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S.;
Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S.; Tubeco Pipe
and Steel Corporation; and Toscelik
Metal Ticaret A.S.; (3) were entered, or
were withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after May 1, 2014
through and including April 30, 2015;
16 For a full discussion of this practice, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954
(May 6, 2003).
17 See Final Results, 81 FR at 92785; see also
Amended Final Results, 82 FR at 11002.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51681
and (4) remain unliquidated as of 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time on February 17, 2017.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and
(e), 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: August 13, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020–18384 Filed 8–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
United States Investment Advisory
Council Meeting
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of an open meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), this notice announces, the
United States Investment Advisory
Council (Council) will hold a virtual
meeting on Thursday, September 10,
2020.
DATES: Thursday, September 10, 2020,
10:00–11:30 a.m. EDT. The deadline for
members of the public to register,
including requests to make comments
during the meeting and for auxiliary
aids, or to submit written comments for
dissemination prior to the meeting is
5:00 p.m. EDT on September 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held
virtually due to the current COVID–19
pandemic. Requests to register
(including to speak) and any written
comments should be submitted to:
United States Investment Advisory
Council, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room
30011, Washington, DC 20230, and
emailed to: IAC@trade.gov. Members of
the public are encouraged to submit
registration requests and written
comments via email to ensure timely
receipt.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Weil, United States Investment
Advisory Council, Room 30011, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230, telephone 202–768–1906.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
United States Investment Advisory
Council (Council) was established by
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
pursuant to duties imposed by 15 U.S.C.
1512 upon the Department and in
compliance with the Federal Advisory
E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM
21AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51680-51681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18384]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-501]
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Amended Final Results of
Review; Amended Final Results of Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube
Products From the Republic of Turkey, 2014-2015
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)
sustained the Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s third remand
redetermination pertaining to the administrative review of welded
carbon steel standard pipe and tube products (welded pipe and tube)
from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) covering the period of review
(POR) May 1, 2014 through April 30, 2015. Commerce is notifying the
public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with the amended
final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is
amending the weighted-average dumping margin for Toscelik Profil ve Sac
Endustrisi A.S. (Toscelik).
DATES: Applicable August 7, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney, 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) 482-4475.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 20, 2016, Commerce published the Final Results in the
2014-2015 administrative review of welded pipe and tube from Turkey, in
which Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 1.91
percent.\1\ After correcting ministerial errors contained in the Final
Results, on February 17, 2017, Commerce published the Amended Final
Results, and calculated a revised weighted-average dumping margin of
3.40 percent for Toscelik.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from
Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2014-
2015, 81 FR 92785 (December 20, 2016) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
\2\ See Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from
Turkey: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 11002 (February 17, 2017) (Amended Final
Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toscelik and the JMC Steel Group (a domestic interested party)
appealed Commerce's Final Results, as amended by the Amended Final
Results, to the CIT. On June 6, 2018, the CIT issued its First Remand
Order, directing Commerce to: (1) Reconsider the calculation of
Toscelik's duty drawback adjustment; and (2) provide further
explanation for granting Toscelik a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for
warehousing expenses.\3\ On October 4, 2018, Commerce submitted its
final results of redetermination, recalculating Toscelik's duty
drawback adjustment, under respectful protest,\4\ and providing further
explanation for granting a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for
warehousing expenses.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States,
321 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (CIT 2018) (First Remand Order) at 17-18.
\4\ See Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed.
Cir. 2003).
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States,
Court No. 17-00018, Slip Op. 18-66 (CIT June 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 1, 2019, the CIT issued its Second Remand Order,
sustaining Commerce's explanation of Toscelik's circumstance-of-sale
for adjustment for warehousing expenses, but remanding Commerce's
modified calculation of Toscelik's duty drawback adjustment.\6\ In
particular, the CIT found that Commerce's additional circumstance-of-
sale adjustment to correct a perceived imbalance in Toscelik's dumping
margin calculation ``negates the statutory duty drawback adjustment
that Toscelik earned by exporting its finished product to the United
States and impinges on the agency's ability to make a fair
comparison.'' \7\ On May 30, 2019, Commerce submitted its second final
results of redetermination, recalculating Toscelik's duty drawback
adjustment, including a circumstance-
[[Page 51681]]
of-sale adjustment to account for the imbalance between the amount of
import duties included in U.S. price as a result of the duty drawback
adjustment and the amount of import duties reflected in normal
value.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States,
375 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (CIT 2019) (Second Remand Order).
\7\ See Second Remand Order, 375 F. Supp. 3d at 1316.
\8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States,
Court No. 17-00018, Slip Op. 19-41 (CIT April 1, 2019) (Second
Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 18, 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.\9\ On March 13, 2020, in the third results of redetermination,
Commerce granted Toscelik a duty drawback adjustment, without making a
circumstance-of-sale adjustment to account for the imbalance between
the U.S. duty drawback adjustment and the amount of import duties
reflected in normal value.\10\ Additionally, Commerce added an imputed
cost for import duties to the cost of production.\11\ This amount is
based on Toscelik's cost of manufacturing during the POR for pipe and
tube and was calculated as the ratio of the total amount of Toscelik's
exempted import duties and its cost of manufacturing during the POR. On
July 28, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce's third results of
redetermination, and entered final judgment.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States,
415 F. Supp. 3d 1395 (CIT 2019) (Third Remand Order).
\10\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States,
Court No. 17-00018, Slip Op. 19-166 (CIT December 18, 2019) (Third
Redetermination).
\11\ Id.
\12\ See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United
States, Court No., 17-00018, Slip Op. 20-105 (CIT July 28, 2020)
(CIT Final Judgment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\13\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\14\ 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 July 28,
2020, final judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is
not in harmony with Commerce's Amended Final Results.\15\ Thus, this
notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of
Timken and section 516A of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\14\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
\15\ See CIT Final Judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Results of Review
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending
its Amended Final Results with respect to Toscelik as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter or producer dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S...................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because Toscelik has a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there
have been final results published in a subsequent administrative review
for Toscelik, this notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate
for Toscelik.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
If the CIT's final judgment is not appealed, or if appealed and
upheld, because Toscelik's amended weighted-average dumping margin is
zero percent, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of
liquidation, and to liquidate and to assess duties at a rate of zero
for entries during the POR that were produced and exported by Toscelik.
Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of
subject merchandise during the POR produced by Toscelik for which
Toscelik did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United
States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the
all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies)
involved in the transaction.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,
68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, at this time, Commerce remains enjoined by Court order from
liquidating entries that: (1) Were the subject of the administrative
determination published in the Final Results, as amended by the Amended
Final Results; \17\ (2) were produced and/or exported by any of the
following: Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S.; Tosyali Dis Ticaret
A.S.; Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation; and Toscelik Metal Ticaret
A.S.; (3) were entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after May 1, 2014 through and including April 30,
2015; and (4) remain unliquidated as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
February 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Final Results, 81 FR at 92785; see also Amended Final
Results, 82 FR at 11002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c)(1) and (e), 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: August 13, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-18384 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
