Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results, Notice of Amended Final Results of Review; 2015-16, 38980-38982 [2021-15743]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
38980
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices
Timken Notice
Background
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
On August 2, 2017, Commerce found
Midwest’s strike pin anchors, which
consist of four components—a steel pin,
a threaded body, a nut, and a flat
washer—to be within the scope of the
AD order on certain steel nails from the
People’s Republic of China.1
Midwest appealed Commerce’s Final
Scope Ruling. On October 19, 2018, the
CIT remanded Commerce’s scope ruling
to Commerce for further consideration.2
On April 25, 2019, Commerce issued its
First Remand Redetermination,
determining that the ‘‘pin’’ portion ‘‘of
the product is subject to the {Order},
while the additional pieces, i.e., the
outer-body anchor, hex nut, and washer
anchor, would not be subject.’’ 3
On March 4, 2020, the CIT again
remanded Commerce’s scope
determination.4 Pursuant to the Second
Remand Order, on June 17, 2020,
Commerce issued its Second Remand
Redetermination, finding that Midwest’s
strike pin anchors, in their entirety, are
covered by the scope of the Order.5
On August 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
issued its final decision in OMG.6 In
light of the CAFC’s decision, on January
21, 2021, the CIT remanded the Final
Scope Ruling to Commerce.7
In its final remand redetermination,
issued in March 2021, Commerce found
Midwest’s strike pin anchors to be
outside the scope of the Order.8 The CIT
sustained Commerce’s final
redetermination.9
1 See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Steel Nails
from the People’s Republic of China: Final Scope
Ruling on Midwest Fastener Strike Pin Anchors,’’
dated August 2, 2017 (Final Scope Ruling); see also
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel
Nails from the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR
44961 (August 1, 2008) (Order).
2 See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States,
348 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (CIT October 19, 2018).
3 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand (First Remand Redetermination),
Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States Court, No.
17–00231, Slip Op. 18–142 (CIT October 19, 2018)
(First Remand Redetermination).
4 See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States,
435 F. Supp. 3d 1262 (CIT March 4, 2020) (Second
Remand Order).
5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United
States, Court No. 17–00231, Slip Op. 20–28 (CIT
March 4, 2020) (Second Remand Redetermination).
6 See OMG, Inc. v. United States, 972 F.3d 1358
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (OMG).
7 See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States,
494 F. Supp. 3d 1335 (CIT January 21, 2021).
8 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, Court
No. 17–00231, Slip Op. 21–07 (CIT January 21,
2021), dated March 23, 2021.
9 See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States,
Slip Op. 21–86, Court No. 17–00231 (CIT July 12,
2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Jul 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Timken,10
In its decision in
as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,11 the
CAFC held that, pursuant to sections
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 CIT’s
July 12, 2021, judgment constitutes a
final decision of the CIT that is not in
harmony with Commerce’s Final Scope
Ruling. Thus, this notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Scope Ruling
In accordance with the CIT’s July 12,
2021, final judgment, Commerce is
amending its Final Scope Ruling and
finds that the scope of the order does
not cover the products addressed in the
Final Scope Ruling.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) that,
pending any appeals, Midwest’s strike
pin anchors will not be subject to a cash
deposit requirement.
In the event that the CIT’s final
judgment is not appealed or is upheld
on appeal, Commerce will instruct CBP
to liquidate entries of Midwest’s strike
pin anchors without regard to
antidumping duties and to lift
suspension of liquidation of such
entries.
At this time, Commerce remains
enjoined by CIT from liquidating entries
included in the scope of the Order by
the Final Scope Ruling. These entries
will remain enjoined pursuant to the
terms of the injunction during the
pendency of any appeals process.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(c) and
(e) of the Act.
Dated: July 19, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021–15741 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
10 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
11 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers
Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
International Trade Administration
[A–580–867]
Large Power Transformers From the
Republic of Korea: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With Final
Results, Notice of Amended Final
Results of Review; 2015–16
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 9, 2021, the Court of
International Trade (CIT) sustained the
final results of redetermination pursuant
to remand pertaining to the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on large power
transformers (LPTs) from the Republic
of Korea (Korea) covering the period
August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016.
The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) is notifying the public that
the final judgment is not in harmony
with the final results of the
administrative review, and that
Commerce is amending the final results
of review with respect to the weightedaverage dumping margin assigned to
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.,
Hyosung Corporation, and the nonexamined company ILJIN Electric Co.,
Ltd.
DATES: Applicable July 19, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
K. Drury, 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) 482–0195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On March 16, 2018, Commerce issued
the final results of the administrative
review for the period August 1, 2015,
through July 31, 2016.1 In the Final
Results, Commerce determined a
weighted-average dumping margin for
the two mandatory respondents,
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
(Hyundai) and Hyosung Corporation
(Hyosung), based on total facts available
with an adverse inference, of 60.81
percent. Further, Commerce determined
the weighted-average dumping margin
for the three companies that were under
review but not selected for individual
examination, ILJIN, ILJIN Electric Co.,
Ltd. (ILJIN Electric), and LSIS Co., Ltd.
1 See Large Power Transformers from the
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2015–2016, 83 FR
11679 (March 16, 2018) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
(LSIS), based on the rates determined
for the mandatory respondents.
On August 5, 2019, the CIT remanded
various aspects of the Final Results to
Commerce.2 Specifically, the CIT
directed Commerce to further explain or
reconsider its reliance on total facts
available with adverse inferences for
both Hyundai and Hyosung. For
Hyundai, the Court directed Commerce
to further explain or reconsider its
reliance on total facts available with
adverse inferences with respect to
Hyundai’s failure to: (1) Provide
information on accessories; (2) report
home market gross unit prices properly;
and (3) disclose an affiliated sales agent.
For Hyosung, the Court directed
Commerce to further explain or
reconsider its reliance on total facts
available with adverse inferences with
respect to Hyosung’s failure to: (1)
Report service-related revenues
contained on order acknowledgement
forms (OAFs); (2) report certain
discounts and rebates; and (3) explain
the use of one invoice for multiple sales
across multiple administrative reviews.
Pursuant to the First Remand Order,
Commerce reconsidered and further
explained its finding regarding
Hyundai’s failure to: (1) Provide
information regarding accessories; (2)
report home market gross unit prices
properly; and (3) disclose an affiliated
sales agent. Commerce also
reconsidered and further explained its
findings regarding Hyosung’s failure to:
(1) Report service-related revenues
recorded on OAFs; (2) report certain
discounts and rebates; and (3) explain
the use of one invoice for multiple sales
across multiple administrative reviews.3
With respect to Hyosung, Commerce
determined that the issues related to
service-related revenues recorded on
OAFs and the use of one invoice for
multiple sales across multiple reviews
were no longer a basis for Commerce’s
application of total facts available with
adverse inferences but that the failure to
report certain discounts and rebates
continued to constitute a basis for
Commerce’s application of total facts
available with adverse inferences. For
Hyundai, Commerce found that
Hyundai’s reporting with respect to
2 See Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and
Hyosung Corporation, Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v.
United States and ABB Inc., Consol. Court No. 18–
00066, Slip Op. 19–105 (CIT August 5, 2019) (First
Remand Order).
3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand
Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and Hyosung
Corporation, Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. United States
and ABB Inc., Consol. Court No. 18–00066, Slip Op.
19–105 (CIT August 5, 2019),’’ dated December 19,
2019, and available at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/remands/19-105.pdf .
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Jul 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
accessories was not a basis for
Commerce’s application of total facts
available with adverse inferences, but
continued to find that the application of
total facts available with adverse
inferences was warranted due to the
understatement of home market prices
and inconsistent treatment of
merchandise under consideration.4
On November 18, 2020, the CIT
remanded Commerce’s Final First
Results of Redetermination with respect
to the application of total adverse facts
available for both Hyundai and
Hyosung, finding that Commerce’s
redeterminations were not supported by
substantial evidence.5 Pursuant to the
Second Remand Order, Commerce
reconsidered its reliance on total facts
available with adverse inferences for
both Hyundai and Hyosung. Commerce
determined that the application of
partial facts available with no adverse
inferences was warranted with respect
to both Hyundai and Hyosung.6
Commerce calculated a weightedaverage dumping margin of zero percent
for both Hyundai and Hyosung.7
Commerce also applied an average of
these two rates, i.e., zero percent, to
ILJIN Electric, which was not selected
for individual examination during the
period of review and which was party
to this litigation.8
On July 9, 2021, the CIT sustained
Commerce’s Final Second Results of
Redetermination.9
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,10 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,11 the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to
sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act),
4 Id.
5 See Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and
Hyosung Corporation and Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v.
United States and ABB Enterprise Software Inc.,
Consol. Court No. 18–00066, Slip Op. 20–165 (CIT
November 18, 2020) (Second Remand Order).
6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand:
Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and Hyosung
Corporation, Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. United States
and ABB Inc., Court No. 18–00066, Slip Op. 20–165
(CIT November 18, 2020),’’ dated April 5, 2021, and
available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/
20-165.pdf (Final Results of Second
Redetermination).
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 See Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and
Hyosung Corporation and Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v.
United States and ABB Enterprise Software Inc.,
Consol. Court No. 18–00066, Slip Op. 21–84 (CIT
July 9, 2021).
10 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), at 341.
11 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38981
Commerce must publish a notice of a
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 9, 2021, judgment
sustaining Commerce’s Final Second
Results of Redetermination constitutes a
final decision of the CIT that is not in
harmony with the Final Results. This
notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
Accordingly, Commerce will continue
the suspension of liquidation of the
subject merchandise at issue pending
expiration of the period to appeal or, if
appealed, pending a final and
conclusive court decision.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision, Commerce is amending the
Final Results with respect to the
weighted-average dumping margin
calculated for Hyundai, Hyosung and
ILJIN Electric. Based on the Final
Results of Second Redetermination, as
affirmed by the CIT, the revised
weighted-average dumping margin for
Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN Electric,
from August 1, 2015, through July 31,
2016, are as follows:
Producer or exporter
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co.,
Ltd ...........................................
Hyosung Corporation ..................
ILJIN Electric Co., Ltd ................
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
0.00
0.00
0.00
In the event that the CIT’s final
judgement is not appealed or, if
appealed, is upheld by a final and
conclusive court decision, Commerce
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to assess antidumping duties
on unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise based on the weightedaverage dumping margins listed above
for the Amended Final Results.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Since the Final Results, Commerce
has established new cash deposit rates
for Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN
Electric.12 Therefore, this Final Results
of Second Redetermination, as affirmed
by the CIT, and as published in this
notice, does not prospectively change
the existing cash deposit rates for
Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN Electric.
12 See, e.g., Large Power Transformers from the
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Duty Administrative Review;
2016–2017, 84 FR 16461 (April 19, 2019).
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
38982
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 19, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021–15743 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–025; C–533–862]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin
From the People’s Republic of China
and India: Final Results of the
Expedited First Sunset Reviews of the
Countervailing Duty Orders
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: As a result of these expedited
sunset reviews, the Department of
Commerce (Commerce) finds that
revocation of the countervailing duty
(CVD) orders on polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) resin from the
People’s Republic of China (China) and
India would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of
countervailable subsidies at the levels as
indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Sunset
Review’’ section of this notice.
DATES: Applicable July 23, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua A. DeMoss, 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) 482–3362.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Background
On May 6, 2016, Commerce published
the CVD orders on PET resin from China
and India in the Federal Register.1 On
March 31, 2021, Commerce published
the notice of initiation of the first sunset
reviews of the Orders, pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act).2 Commerce
received a notice of intent to participate
from DAK Americas, LLC, Indorama
1 See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin
from India and the People’s Republic of China:
Countervailing Duty Order (India) and Amended
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Countervailing Duty Order
(People’s Republic of China), 81 FR 27977 (May 6,
2016) (Orders).
2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review, 86
FR 16701 (March 31, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Jul 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
Ventures USA Inc., and Nan Ya Plastics
Corporation, America (collectively,
domestic interested parties) within the
deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(1)(i).3 Each claimed
interested party status under section
771(9)(C) of the Act as domestic
producers engaged in the production of
PET resin in the United States.
On April 30, 2021, Commerce
received a substantive response from the
domestic interested parties within the
30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(i).4 On May 3, 2021, two
respondent interested parties, CG
Roxane, LLC (CG Roxane) and Niagara
Bottling, LLC (Niagara), filed
substantive responses pursuant to 19
CFR 351.218(d)(3), to the record of the
China sunset review.5 However, for the
substantive responses of respondent
interested parties to be considered
adequate under this regulation, the
respondents must account for, on
average, more than 50 percent (volume
or value) of total exports during the fiveyear period preceding the year of
publication of the initiation notice,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A).
CG Roxane and Niagara failed to
demonstrate this. We did not receive a
substantive response from any other
interested party in these proceedings.
On May 21, 2021, Commerce notified
the U.S. International Trade
Commission (ITC) that it did not receive
an adequate substantive response from
respondent interested parties.6 As a
result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B)
of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce
3 See Domestic Interested Parties’ Letters, ‘‘FiveYear (Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin
from the People’s Republic of China—Domestic
Interested Parties’ Notice of Intent to Participate,’’
dated April 15, 2021; and ‘‘Five-Year (Sunset)
Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain
Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India—
Domestic Interested Parties’ Notice of Intent to
Participate,’’ dated April 15, 2021.
4 See Domestic Interested Parties’ Letters, ‘‘FiveYear (Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin
from the People’s Republic of China—Domestic
Interested Parties’ Substantive Response to Notice
of Initiation,’ dated April 30, 2021 (China
Substantive Response); and ‘‘Five-Year (Sunset)
Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain
Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India—
Domestic Interested Parties’ Substantive Response
to Notice of Initiation,’’ dated April 30, 2021 (India
Substantive Response).
5 See CG Roxane’s Letter, ‘‘Sunset Review of
Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from China and
Oman: Response to Notice of Institution,’’ dated
May 3, 2021; and Niagara’s Letter, ‘‘Sunset Review
of Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from China:
Response to Notice of Institution,’’ dated May 3,
2021.
6 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Sunset Review for
April 2021,’’ dated May 21, 2021.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conducted expedited (120-day) sunset
reviews of these Orders.
Scope of the Orders
The merchandise covered by these
orders is polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity
of at least 0.70, but not more than 0.88,
deciliters per gram. The scope includes
blends of virgin PET resin and recycled
PET resin containing 50 percent or more
virgin PET resin content by weight,
provided such blends meet the intrinsic
viscosity requirements above. The scope
includes all PET resin meeting the
above specifications regardless of
additives introduced in the
manufacturing process. The
merchandise subject to these orders is
properly classified under subheading
3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise covered by these orders is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in these sunset
reviews are addressed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum, including the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence
of countervailable subsidies and the net
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail
if the Orders were revoked.7 The Issues
and Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file electronically
via Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Services System
(ACCESS). ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/
index.html. A list of the issues
discussed in the decision memorandum
is attached at the appendix to this
notice.
Final Results of Sunset Reviews
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and
752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines
that revocation of the Orders would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of countervailable subsidies
at the following rates:
7 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Expedited First Sunset
Review of the Countervailing Duty Orders of
Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People’s
Republic of China and India,’’ dated concurrently
with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and
Decision Memorandum).
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38980-38982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15743]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-867]
Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results, Notice of Amended
Final Results of Review; 2015-16
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 9, 2021, the Court of International Trade (CIT)
sustained the final results of redetermination pursuant to remand
pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order
on large power transformers (LPTs) from the Republic of Korea (Korea)
covering the period August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016. The
Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the
final judgment is not in harmony with the final results of the
administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results
of review with respect to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned
to Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Hyosung Corporation, and the
non-examined company ILJIN Electric Co., Ltd.
DATES: Applicable July 19, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Drury, 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) 482-0195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 16, 2018, Commerce issued the final results of the
administrative review for the period August 1, 2015, through July 31,
2016.\1\ In the Final Results, Commerce determined a weighted-average
dumping margin for the two mandatory respondents, Hyundai Heavy
Industries Co., Ltd. (Hyundai) and Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung), based
on total facts available with an adverse inference, of 60.81 percent.
Further, Commerce determined the weighted-average dumping margin for
the three companies that were under review but not selected for
individual examination, ILJIN, ILJIN Electric Co., Ltd. (ILJIN
Electric), and LSIS Co., Ltd.
[[Page 38981]]
(LSIS), based on the rates determined for the mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016,
83 FR 11679 (March 16, 2018) (Final Results), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 5, 2019, the CIT remanded various aspects of the Final
Results to Commerce.\2\ Specifically, the CIT directed Commerce to
further explain or reconsider its reliance on total facts available
with adverse inferences for both Hyundai and Hyosung. For Hyundai, the
Court directed Commerce to further explain or reconsider its reliance
on total facts available with adverse inferences with respect to
Hyundai's failure to: (1) Provide information on accessories; (2)
report home market gross unit prices properly; and (3) disclose an
affiliated sales agent. For Hyosung, the Court directed Commerce to
further explain or reconsider its reliance on total facts available
with adverse inferences with respect to Hyosung's failure to: (1)
Report service-related revenues contained on order acknowledgement
forms (OAFs); (2) report certain discounts and rebates; and (3) explain
the use of one invoice for multiple sales across multiple
administrative reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and Hyosung
Corporation, Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. United States and ABB Inc.,
Consol. Court No. 18-00066, Slip Op. 19-105 (CIT August 5, 2019)
(First Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the First Remand Order, Commerce reconsidered and
further explained its finding regarding Hyundai's failure to: (1)
Provide information regarding accessories; (2) report home market gross
unit prices properly; and (3) disclose an affiliated sales agent.
Commerce also reconsidered and further explained its findings regarding
Hyosung's failure to: (1) Report service-related revenues recorded on
OAFs; (2) report certain discounts and rebates; and (3) explain the use
of one invoice for multiple sales across multiple administrative
reviews.\3\ With respect to Hyosung, Commerce determined that the
issues related to service-related revenues recorded on OAFs and the use
of one invoice for multiple sales across multiple reviews were no
longer a basis for Commerce's application of total facts available with
adverse inferences but that the failure to report certain discounts and
rebates continued to constitute a basis for Commerce's application of
total facts available with adverse inferences. For Hyundai, Commerce
found that Hyundai's reporting with respect to accessories was not a
basis for Commerce's application of total facts available with adverse
inferences, but continued to find that the application of total facts
available with adverse inferences was warranted due to the
understatement of home market prices and inconsistent treatment of
merchandise under consideration.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and Hyosung
Corporation, Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. United States and ABB Inc.,
Consol. Court No. 18-00066, Slip Op. 19-105 (CIT August 5, 2019),''
dated December 19, 2019, and available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/19-105.pdf .
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 18, 2020, the CIT remanded Commerce's Final First
Results of Redetermination with respect to the application of total
adverse facts available for both Hyundai and Hyosung, finding that
Commerce's redeterminations were not supported by substantial
evidence.\5\ Pursuant to the Second Remand Order, Commerce reconsidered
its reliance on total facts available with adverse inferences for both
Hyundai and Hyosung. Commerce determined that the application of
partial facts available with no adverse inferences was warranted with
respect to both Hyundai and Hyosung.\6\ Commerce calculated a weighted-
average dumping margin of zero percent for both Hyundai and Hyosung.\7\
Commerce also applied an average of these two rates, i.e., zero
percent, to ILJIN Electric, which was not selected for individual
examination during the period of review and which was party to this
litigation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and Hyosung
Corporation and Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. United States and ABB
Enterprise Software Inc., Consol. Court No. 18-00066, Slip Op. 20-
165 (CIT November 18, 2020) (Second Remand Order).
\6\ See Memorandum, ``Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand: Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and Hyosung
Corporation, Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. United States and ABB Inc.,
Court No. 18-00066, Slip Op. 20-165 (CIT November 18, 2020),'' dated
April 5, 2021, and available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/20-165.pdf (Final Results of Second Redetermination).
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 9, 2021, the CIT sustained Commerce's Final Second Results
of Redetermination.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co. Ltd. and Hyosung
Corporation and Iljin Electric Co., Ltd. v. United States and ABB
Enterprise Software Inc., Consol. Court No. 18-00066, Slip Op. 21-84
(CIT July 9, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\10\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\11\ the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a
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 9, 2021, judgment sustaining Commerce's Final
Second Results of Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the
CIT that is not in harmony with the Final Results. This notice is
published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of
the subject merchandise at issue pending expiration of the period to
appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken), at 341.
\11\ 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 decision, Commerce is amending
the Final Results with respect to the weighted-average dumping margin
calculated for Hyundai, Hyosung and ILJIN Electric. Based on the Final
Results of Second Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT, the revised
weighted-average dumping margin for Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN
Electric, from August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016, are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer or exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd........................... 0.00
Hyosung Corporation......................................... 0.00
ILJIN Electric Co., Ltd..................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event that the CIT's final judgement is not appealed or, if
appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping
duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the
weighted-average dumping margins listed above for the Amended Final
Results.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Since the Final Results, Commerce has established new cash deposit
rates for Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN Electric.\12\ Therefore, this
Final Results of Second Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT, and as
published in this notice, does not prospectively change the existing
cash deposit rates for Hyundai, Hyosung, and ILJIN Electric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., Large Power Transformers from the Republic of
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Duty
Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 84 FR 16461 (April 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38982]]
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 19, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-15743 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
