Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results, 26902-26903 [2021-10439]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26902
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 18, 2021 / Notices
on the due date. Under certain
circumstances, we may elect to specify
a different time limit by which
extension requests will be considered
untimely for submissions which are due
from multiple parties simultaneously. In
such a case, we will inform parties in a
letter or memorandum of the deadline
(including a specified time) by which
extension requests must be filed to be
considered timely. An extension request
must be made in a separate, stand-alone
submission; under limited
circumstances we will grant untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time
limits. Parties should review
Commerce’s regulations pertaining to
the extension of time limits prior to
submitting factual information in these
investigations.46
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or countervailing
duty proceeding must certify to the
accuracy and completeness of that
information.47 Parties must use the
certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).48 Commerce intends to
reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with
the applicable certification
requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Parties wishing to participate in these
investigations should ensure that they
meet the requirements of 19 CFR
351.103(d) (e.g., by filing the required
letter of appearance). Note that
Commerce has temporarily modified
certain of its requirements for serving
documents containing business
proprietary information, until further
notice.49
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46 See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/201322853.htm.
47 See section 782(b) of the Act.
48 See Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule are available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
49 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD
Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension
of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i)
of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: May 11, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations is raw honey. Raw honey is
honey as it exists in the beehive or as
obtained by extraction, settling and
skimming, or coarse straining. Raw honey
has not been filtered to a level that results in
the removal of most or all of the pollen, e.g.,
a level that removes pollen to below 25
microns. The subject products include all
grades, floral sources and colors of raw honey
and also include organic raw honey.
Excluded from the scope is any honey that
is packaged for retail sale (e.g., in bottles or
other retail containers of five (5) lbs. or less).
The merchandise subject to these
investigations is currently classifiable under
statistical subheading 0409.00.0005,
0409.00.0035, 0409.00.0045, 0409.00.0056,
and 0409.00.0065 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of these investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2021–10440 Filed 5–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–979]
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells,
Whether or Not Assembled Into
Modules, From the People’s Republic
of China: Notice of Court Decision Not
in Harmony With Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; Notice of Amended Final
Results
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 5, 2021, the United
States Court of International Trade (the
Court) issued its final judgment in Risen
Energy Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 19–00153, sustaining
the Department of Commerce
(Commerce)’s first remand
redetermination pertaining to the 2016–
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2017 antidumping duty (AD)
administrative review of crystalline
silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or
not assembled into modules (solar
cells), from the People’s Republic of
China (China). Commerce is notifying
the public that the Court’s final
judgment in this litigation is not in
harmony with Commerce’s final results
in the 2016–2017 AD administrative
review of solar cells from China, and
that Commerce is amending the final
results with respect to the mandatory
respondent Risen Energy Co., Ltd.
(Risen) and three non-individually
examined companies.
DATES:
Applicable May 15, 2021.
Jeff
Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Office
IV, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2769.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 30, 2019, Commerce
published its Final Results of the 2016–
2017 AD administrative review of solar
cells from China.1 Risen appealed
Commerce’s Final Results. On October
30, 2020, the Court remanded
Commerce’s Final Results for Commerce
to reconsider or further explain its
application of partial adverse facts
available (AFA) in valuing unreported
factors of production (FOPs) for
merchandise sourced from Risen’s
unaffiliated suppliers, which were
necessary for calculating Risen’s 2
dumping margin.3
1 See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells,
Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Final Determination of No Shipments; 2016–2017,
84 FR 36886 (July 30, 2019) (AR5 Final Results),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
2 Commerce has treated the following seven
companies as a single entity: Risen Energy Co., Ltd.;
Risen (Wuhai) New Energy Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang
Twinsel Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.; Risen
(Luoyang) New Energy Co., Ltd.; Jiujiang Shengchao
Xinye Technology Co., Ltd.; Jiujiang Shengzhao
Xinye Trade Co., Ltd. Ruichang Branch; and Risen
Energy (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. (collectively, Risen).
See AR5 Final Results.
3 See Risen Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United
States, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (CIT 2020) (Risen I).
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
26903
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 18, 2021 / Notices
In its Remand Redetermination,
pursuant to the Court’s holding in Risen
I, Commerce determined, under
respectful protest, to base Risen’s
unreported FOP consumption on partial
facts available rather than partial AFA.4
Specifically, Commerce based the
unreported FOP consumption on the
average of the consumption that was
reported for certain of Risen’s FOPs.5
Commerce assigned the margin
calculated for Risen to those
respondents eligible for a separate rate
and which participated in the
litigation.6 On May 5, 2021, the Court
sustained Commerce’s Remand
Redetermination.7
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,8 as clarified
by Diamond Sawblades,9 the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit held
that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e)
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
Court’s May 5, 2021, judgment
constitutes a final decision of the Court
that is not in harmony with Commerce’s
Final Results. Thus, this notice is
published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision, Commerce is amending its
Final Results. The amended weightedaverage dumping margin for the
respondents which participated in this
litigation is as follows:
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Risen Energy Co., Ltd./Risen (Wuhai) New Energy Co., Ltd./Zhejiang Twinsel Electronic Technology Co., Ltd./Risen (Luoyang) New
Energy Co., Ltd./Jiujiang Shengchao Xinye Technology Co., Ltd./Jiujiang Shengzhao Xinye Trade Co., Ltd. Ruichang Branch/
Risen Energy (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................
Canadian Solar International Limited/Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc./Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang),
Inc./CSI Cells Co., Ltd./CSI–GCL Solar Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd./CSI Solar Power (China) Inc ......................................
Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................................................
Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited/Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Baoding
Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd./Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Hainan Yingli New Energy
Resources Co., Ltd./Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd ...............................................................................................
Because the cash deposit rates for all
of the respondents listed above have a
superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there
have been final results published in a
subsequent administrative review, this
notice does not affect the current cash
deposit rates of these respondents and
we will not issue revised cash deposit
instructions to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains
enjoined by CIT order from liquidating
entries that: Were exported by all of the
respondents listed above and were
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption during the period
December 1, 2016, through November
30, 2017. These entries will remain
enjoined pursuant to the terms of the
injunction during the pendency of any
appeals process.
In the event the Court’s ruling is not
appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a
final and conclusive court decision,
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on
unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise exported by all of the
4 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Order, Risen Energy Co., Ltd. et al. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 19–00153, Slip
Op. 20–152 (February 10, 2021) at 4.
5 Id. at 6.
6 Id. at 7–8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
respondents listed above in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered
by this review when the importerspecific ad valorem assessment rate is
not zero or de minimis. Where an
import-specific ad valorem assessment
rate is zero or de minimis,10 we will
instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate
entries without regard to antidumping
duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(c) and
(e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 12, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021–10439 Filed 5–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
7 See Risen Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United
States, et al., Consol. Court No. 19–00153, Slip Op.
21–55 (Ct. Int’l Trade May 5, 2021).
8 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3.63
3.30
3.30
3.30
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–533–876]
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
From India: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; 2019
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) preliminarily determines
that Reliance Industries Limited
(Reliance), a producer/exporter of fine
denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier
PSF) from India, received
countervailable subsidies that are above
de minimis during the period of review,
January 1, 2019, through December 31,
2019.
DATES: Applicable May 18, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ariela Garvett, AD/CVD Operations,
Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
AGENCY:
9 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers
Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
10 See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26902-26903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10439]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-979]
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled
Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 5, 2021, the United States Court of International Trade
(the Court) issued its final judgment in Risen Energy Co., Ltd. et al.
v. United States, Consol. Court No. 19-00153, sustaining the Department
of Commerce (Commerce)'s first remand redetermination pertaining to the
2016-2017 antidumping duty (AD) administrative review of crystalline
silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules
(solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is
notifying the public that the Court's final judgment in this litigation
is not in harmony with Commerce's final results in the 2016-2017 AD
administrative review of solar cells from China, and that Commerce is
amending the final results with respect to the mandatory respondent
Risen Energy Co., Ltd. (Risen) and three non-individually examined
companies.
DATES: Applicable May 15, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations,
Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2769.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 30, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results of the 2016-
2017 AD administrative review of solar cells from China.\1\ Risen
appealed Commerce's Final Results. On October 30, 2020, the Court
remanded Commerce's Final Results for Commerce to reconsider or further
explain its application of partial adverse facts available (AFA) in
valuing unreported factors of production (FOPs) for merchandise sourced
from Risen's unaffiliated suppliers, which were necessary for
calculating Risen's \2\ dumping margin.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not
Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017, 84 FR 36886 (July 30,
2019) (AR5 Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
\2\ Commerce has treated the following seven companies as a
single entity: Risen Energy Co., Ltd.; Risen (Wuhai) New Energy Co.,
Ltd.; Zhejiang Twinsel Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.; Risen
(Luoyang) New Energy Co., Ltd.; Jiujiang Shengchao Xinye Technology
Co., Ltd.; Jiujiang Shengzhao Xinye Trade Co., Ltd. Ruichang Branch;
and Risen Energy (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. (collectively, Risen). See
AR5 Final Results.
\3\ See Risen Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, 477 F.
Supp. 3d 1331 (CIT 2020) (Risen I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26903]]
In its Remand Redetermination, pursuant to the Court's holding in
Risen I, Commerce determined, under respectful protest, to base Risen's
unreported FOP consumption on partial facts available rather than
partial AFA.\4\ Specifically, Commerce based the unreported FOP
consumption on the average of the consumption that was reported for
certain of Risen's FOPs.\5\ Commerce assigned the margin calculated for
Risen to those respondents eligible for a separate rate and which
participated in the litigation.\6\ On May 5, 2021, the Court sustained
Commerce's Remand Redetermination.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Order, Risen Energy Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court
No. 19-00153, Slip Op. 20-152 (February 10, 2021) at 4.
\5\ Id. at 6.
\6\ Id. at 7-8.
\7\ See Risen Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, et al.,
Consol. Court No. 19-00153, Slip Op. 21-55 (Ct. Int'l Trade May 5,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\8\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\9\
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to
section 516A(c) and (e) 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 Court's May 5,
2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in
harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published
in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\9\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending
its Final Results. The amended weighted-average dumping margin for the
respondents which participated in this litigation is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risen Energy Co., Ltd./Risen (Wuhai) New Energy Co., Ltd./ 3.63
Zhejiang Twinsel Electronic Technology Co., Ltd./Risen
(Luoyang) New Energy Co., Ltd./Jiujiang Shengchao Xinye
Technology Co., Ltd./Jiujiang Shengzhao Xinye Trade Co.,
Ltd. Ruichang Branch/Risen Energy (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.....
Canadian Solar International Limited/Canadian Solar 3.30
Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc./Canadian Solar Manufacturing
(Luoyang), Inc./CSI Cells Co., Ltd./CSI-GCL Solar
Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd./CSI Solar Power (China)
Inc........................................................
Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd....................................... 3.30
Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited/Baoding Tianwei Yingli 3.30
New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Tianjin Yingli New Energy
Resources Co., Ltd./Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources
Co., Ltd./Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./
Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd./Beijing
Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Hainan
Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Shenzhen Yingli New
Energy Resources Co., Ltd..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the cash deposit rates for all of the respondents listed
above have a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final
results published in a subsequent administrative review, this notice
does not affect the current cash deposit rates of these respondents and
we will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP).
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries that: Were exported by all of the respondents
listed above and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption during the period December 1, 2016, through November 30,
2017. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the
injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed,
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of
subject merchandise exported by all of the respondents listed above in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review
when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de
minimis. Where an import-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or
de minimis,\10\ we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate
entries without regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 12, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-10439 Filed 5-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
