Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results, 31281-31282 [2021-12313]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Notices 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A 533–810] Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the Order is barium chloride, a chemical compound having the formulas BaCl2 or BaCl2-2H20, currently classifiable under subheading 2827.39.4500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).6 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive. Continuation of the Order As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Order would likely lead to a continuation or a recurrence of dumping, as well as material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Order. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the Order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year sunset review of the Order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. Notification to Interested Parties Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 2, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the CIT) issued its final judgment in Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United States, Court No. 19–00200, sustaining the Department of Commerce (Commerce)’s remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India covering the period February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT’s final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce’s final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the dumping margins assigned to Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates Precision Metals, Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd., and Hindustan Inox Ltd. (collectively, the Venus Group), Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited (Jindal), and Laxcon Steels Limited (Laxcon). DATES: Applicable June 12, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla, 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) 482–3477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: June 7, 2021. Christian Marsh, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2021–12314 Filed 6–10–21; 8:45 am] jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results On October 21, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2017– 2018 AD administrative review of SSB from India.1 In the Final Results, we determined that the Venus Group is not the manufacturer of the SSB that it purchased from unaffiliated suppliers and processed in India prior to exportation to the United States.2 Because most of the unaffiliated suppliers did not provide their costs, we applied partial adverse facts available BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 5 See Barium Chloride from China, 86 FR 30332 (June 7, 2021). 6 The scope reflects the HTSUS subheading currently in effect. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Jun 10, 2021 Jkt 253001 1 See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order; 2017–2018, 84 FR 56179 (October 21, 2019) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM). 2 See Final Results IDM at Comment 1. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 31281 (AFA) with respect to the Venus Group.3 The petitioners 4 appealed Commerce’s Final Results.5 On August 4, 2020, Commerce requested a voluntary remand to reconsider or further explain the application of its partial AFA methodology to address missing cost of production data from the Venus Group’s unaffiliated suppliers, the change in the partial AFA methodology between the Preliminary Results 6 and the Final Results, and, if appropriate, to reconsider the appropriate AD rates assigned to Jindal and Laxcon.7 On November 4, 2020, the CIT granted Commerce’s motion for a voluntary remand finding that there was a compelling justification for the remand request, that the need to accurately calculate margins was not outweighed by the interest in finality, and that the scope of the requested remand was appropriate.8 Specifically, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce to further explain or reconsider its partial AFA methodology in the Final Results.9 In its Remand Redetermination, issued in January 2021,10 Commerce further explained its revised partial AFA methodology, and made certain corrections in the Venus Group’s margin program. Specifically, Commerce included all of the Venus Group’s U.S. sales in its margin calculation; matched sales and costs by manufacturer; and made AFA adjustments not only to cost of production, but also other components of cost, including variable cost of manufacture and fixed and variable overhead.11 Accordingly, Commerce made changes to the margin 3 Id. 4 The petitioners are: Carpenter Technology Corporation; Crucible Industries LLC; Electralloy, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.; North American Stainless; Universal Stainless Alloy Product, Inc.; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. 5 See Plaintiff’s Rule 56.2 Motion for Judgment upon the Agency Record, in Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United States, Court No. 19– 00200 (filed May 5, 2020). 6 See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017–2018, 84 FR 15582 (April 16, 2019) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM). 7 See Government’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment upon the Agency Record, in Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United States, Court No. 19–00200 (filed August 4, 2020). 8 See Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United States, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (CIT 2020). 9 Id. 10 See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United States, Court No. 19–00200, Slip Op. 20–158, dated January 27, 2021 (Remand Redetermination). 11 Id. at 6 through 11. E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 31282 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Notices calculations for the Venus Group.12 Commerce also made changes to the rates assigned to Jindal and Laxcon.13 The CIT sustained Commerce’s Remand Redetermination and also denied a motion to intervene that was filed by Laxcon.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(c) 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 June 2, 2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce’s Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate for Venus Group. For Jindal and Laxcon, which do not have a superseding cash deposit rate, Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP. Liquidation of Suspended Entries jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by the CIT order from liquidating entries that: Were produced and/or exported by the Venus Group, Jindal, or Laxcon, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process. In the event the CIT’s ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Amended Final Results Commerce intends to instruct CBP to Because there is now a final court assess antidumping duties on judgment, Commerce is amending the unliquidated entries of subject Final Results with respect to Venus merchandise produced and/or exported Group, Jindal, and Laxcon as follows: 17 by the Venus Group, Jindal, or Laxcon in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). WeightedWe will instruct CBP to apply the ad average valorem assessment rates listed above to Producer/exporter dumping margin all entries of subject merchandise (percent) during the period of review which were produced and/or exported by Jindal and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Laxcon. For the Venus Group, we will and its affiliates Precision Metals, Sieves Manufacturers instruct CBP to assess antidumping (India) Pvt. Ltd., and Hinduduties on all appropriate entries covered stan Inox Ltd ........................... 24.60 by this review when the importerJindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited .. 92.10 specific ad valorem assessment rate is Laxcon Steels Limited ................ 24.60 not zero or de minimis. Where an import-specific ad valorem assessment Cash Deposit Rates rate is zero or de minimis,18 we will Because the Venus Group has a instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there entries without regard to antidumping have been final results published in a duties. For entries of subject subsequent administrative review, we merchandise during the period of will not issue revised cash deposit review produced by the Venus Group for which it did not know its 12 Id. merchandise was destined for the 13 Jindal’s total AFA rate was based on one of the Venus Group’s highest transaction-specific margins. United States, we will instruct CBP to Because Commerce made changes to the computer liquidate unreviewed entries at the allprograms for the Venus Group, this resulted in a others rate if there is no rate for the change to the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for the Venus Group, which was intermediate company(ies) involved in assigned as the revised total AFA rate for Jindal. the transaction. Laxcon, as a non-selected respondent, received the Venus Group’s revised rate on remand. See Remand Redetermination at 11–13. 14 See Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United States, Court No. 19–00200, Slip Op. 21–68 (June 2, 2021). 15 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 16 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 17 See Final Remand Redetermination at 11–12. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:14 Jun 10, 2021 Jkt 253001 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. 18 See PO 00000 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated: June 7, 2021. Christian Marsh, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2021–12313 Filed 6–10–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders and findings with April anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce’s regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. DATES: Applicable June 11, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4735. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders and findings with April anniversary dates. All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time. Notice of No Sales If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at https://access.trade.gov, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 1 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011). E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31281-31282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12313]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A 533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in 
Harmony With the Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
Notice of Amended Final Results

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

SUMMARY: On June 2, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the 
CIT) issued its final judgment in Carpenter Technology Corporation, et 
al. v. United States, Court No. 19-00200, sustaining the Department of 
Commerce (Commerce)'s remand results pertaining to the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on stainless steel bar (SSB) 
from India covering the period February 1, 2017 through January 31, 
2018. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is 
not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative 
review, and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to 
the dumping margins assigned to Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its 
affiliates Precision Metals, Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 
and Hindustan Inox Ltd. (collectively, the Venus Group), Jindal 
Stainless (Hisar) Limited (Jindal), and Laxcon Steels Limited (Laxcon).

DATES: Applicable June 12, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla, 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) 482-3477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 21, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the 
2017-2018 AD administrative review of SSB from India.\1\ In the Final 
Results, we determined that the Venus Group is not the manufacturer of 
the SSB that it purchased from unaffiliated suppliers and processed in 
India prior to exportation to the United States.\2\ Because most of the 
unaffiliated suppliers did not provide their costs, we applied partial 
adverse facts available (AFA) with respect to the Venus Group.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order; 2017-2018, 84 
FR 56179 (October 21, 2019) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 1.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners \4\ appealed Commerce's Final Results.\5\ On August 
4, 2020, Commerce requested a voluntary remand to reconsider or further 
explain the application of its partial AFA methodology to address 
missing cost of production data from the Venus Group's unaffiliated 
suppliers, the change in the partial AFA methodology between the 
Preliminary Results \6\ and the Final Results, and, if appropriate, to 
reconsider the appropriate AD rates assigned to Jindal and Laxcon.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The petitioners are: Carpenter Technology Corporation; 
Crucible Industries LLC; Electralloy, a Division of G.O. Carlson, 
Inc.; North American Stainless; Universal Stainless Alloy Product, 
Inc.; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc.
    \5\ See Plaintiff's Rule 56.2 Motion for Judgment upon the 
Agency Record, in Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United 
States, Court No. 19-00200 (filed May 5, 2020).
    \6\ See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary Results of 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018, 84 FR 15582 
(April 16, 2019) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary 
Decision Memorandum (PDM).
    \7\ See Government's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment 
upon the Agency Record, in Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. 
v. United States, Court No. 19-00200 (filed August 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 4, 2020, the CIT granted Commerce's motion for a 
voluntary remand finding that there was a compelling justification for 
the remand request, that the need to accurately calculate margins was 
not outweighed by the interest in finality, and that the scope of the 
requested remand was appropriate.\8\ Specifically, the CIT remanded the 
Final Results to Commerce to further explain or reconsider its partial 
AFA methodology in the Final Results.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United 
States, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (CIT 2020).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Remand Redetermination, issued in January 2021,\10\ Commerce 
further explained its revised partial AFA methodology, and made certain 
corrections in the Venus Group's margin program. Specifically, Commerce 
included all of the Venus Group's U.S. sales in its margin calculation; 
matched sales and costs by manufacturer; and made AFA adjustments not 
only to cost of production, but also other components of cost, 
including variable cost of manufacture and fixed and variable 
overhead.\11\ Accordingly, Commerce made changes to the margin

[[Page 31282]]

calculations for the Venus Group.\12\ Commerce also made changes to the 
rates assigned to Jindal and Laxcon.\13\ The CIT sustained Commerce's 
Remand Redetermination and also denied a motion to intervene that was 
filed by Laxcon.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, 
Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United States, Court No. 
19-00200, Slip Op. 20-158, dated January 27, 2021 (Remand 
Redetermination).
    \11\ Id. at 6 through 11.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Jindal's total AFA rate was based on one of the Venus 
Group's highest transaction-specific margins. Because Commerce made 
changes to the computer programs for the Venus Group, this resulted 
in a change to the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for 
the Venus Group, which was assigned as the revised total AFA rate 
for Jindal. Laxcon, as a non-selected respondent, received the Venus 
Group's revised rate on remand. See Remand Redetermination at 11-13.
    \14\ See Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United 
States, Court No. 19-00200, Slip Op. 21-68 (June 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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(c) 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 June 2, 
2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in 
harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published 
in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \16\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending 
the Final Results with respect to Venus Group, Jindal, and Laxcon as 
follows: \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Final Remand Redetermination at 11-12.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                      Producer/exporter                         dumping
                                                                margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates Precision       24.60
 Metals, Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd., and
 Hindustan Inox Ltd.........................................
Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited............................       92.10
Laxcon Steels Limited.......................................       24.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Rates

    Because the Venus Group has a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., 
there have been final results published in a subsequent administrative 
review, we will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This notice will not affect the 
current cash deposit rate for Venus Group. For Jindal and Laxcon, which 
do not have a superseding cash deposit rate, Commerce will issue 
revised cash deposit instructions to CBP.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by the CIT order from 
liquidating entries that: Were produced and/or exported by the Venus 
Group, Jindal, or Laxcon, and were entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption during the period February 1, 2017, through 
January 31, 2018. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the 
terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
    In the event the CIT'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 produced and/or exported by the Venus Group, 
Jindal, or Laxcon in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will 
instruct CBP to apply the ad valorem assessment rates listed above to 
all entries of subject merchandise during the period of review which 
were produced and/or exported by Jindal and Laxcon. For the Venus 
Group, 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,\18\ we will 
instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties. For entries of subject merchandise during the 
period of review produced by the Venus Group for which it did not know 
its 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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: June 7, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-12313 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.