Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results, 1112-1114 [2022-00181]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
1112
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 6 / Monday, January 10, 2022 / Notices
If the ITC determines that material
injury or threat of material injury does
not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated, and all cash deposits will be
refunded. If the ITC determines that
material injury or threat of material
injury does exist, Commerce will issue
a CVD order directing CBP to assess,
upon further instruction by Commerce,
countervailing duties on all imports of
the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation, as
discussed above in the ‘‘Continuation of
Suspension of Liquidation’’ section.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
In the event that the ITC issues a final
negative injury determination, this
notice will serve as the only reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 705(d) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: December 30, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive
functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is pentafluoroethane (R-125), or
its chemical equivalent, regardless of form,
type or purity level. R-125 has the Chemical
Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number of
354–33–6 and the chemical formula C2HF5.
R-125 is also referred to as
Pentafluoroethane, Genetron HFC 125,
Khladon 125, Suva 125, Freon 125, and Fc125.
R-125 contained in blends that do not
conform to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34 is
included in the scope of this investigation
when R-125 constitutes the largest relative
component by volume, on an actual
percentage basis, of the blend.17 However, R17 ‘‘Largest relative component by volume, on an
actual percentage basis’’ means that the percentage
of R-125 contained in a blend is larger than the
individual percentages of all the other components.
For example, R-125 contained in a blend that does
not conform to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34 and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jan 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
125 incorporated into a blend that conforms
to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34 is excluded
from the scope of this investigation. When R125 is blended with other products and
otherwise falls under the scope of this
investigation, only the R-125 component of
the mixture is covered by the scope of this
investigation.
Subject merchandise also includes purified
and unpurified R-125 that is processed in a
third country or otherwise outside the
customs territory of the United States,
including, but not limited to, purifying,
blending, or any other processing that would
not otherwise remove the merchandise from
the scope of this investigation if performed
in the country of manufacture of the in-scope
R-125. The scope also includes R-125 that is
commingled with R-125 from sources not
subject to this investigation. Only the subject
component of such commingled products is
covered by the scope of this investigation.
Excluded from the scope is merchandise
covered by the scope of the antidumping
order on Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the
People’s Republic of China, including
merchandise subject to the affirmative anticircumvention determination in
Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the People’s
Republic of China: Affirmative Final
Determination of Circumvention of the
Antidumping Duty Order; Unfinished R–32/
R-125 Blends, 85 FR 15428 (March 18, 2020).
See Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the
People’s Republic of China: Antidumping
Duty Order, 81 FR 55436 (August 19, 2016)
(the Blends Order).
R-125 is classified under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheading 2903.39.2035 and 2903.39.2038.
Merchandise subject to the scope may also be
entered under HTSUS subheadings
2903.39.2045, 3824.78.0020, and
3824.78.0050. The HTSUS subheadings and
CAS registry number are provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The
written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Appendix II
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and
Decision Memo
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope Comments
IV. Final Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances
V. Subsidies Valuation Information
VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and
Adverse Inferences
VII. Analysis of Programs
VIII. Discussion of the Issues
Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts
Available (AFA) to the Export Buyer’s
Credit Program (EBCP)
Comment 2: Application of AFA to the
Provision of Electricity for Less-ThanAdequate-Renumeration (LTAR) Program
Comment 3: Application of AFA to Other
Subsidy Programs
which contains 35% R-125 by volume is covered by
the scope of the investigations if no other
component part of the blend equals or exceeds 35%
of the volume of the blend.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment 4: Ministerial Error in the
Subsidy Rate Calculation for the
Electricity for LTAR Program for Sanmei
Comment 5: Selection of Fluorspar for
LTAR Benchmark Prices
Comment 6: Creditworthiness of Juhua
Group Corporation (Juhua Group)
Comment 7: Undervaluation of the
Renminbi (RMB)
Comment 8: Seasonality in the Critical
Circumstances Analysis
IX. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2022–00180 Filed 1–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–876]
Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With the Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review;
Notice of Amended Final Results
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 3, 2022, the U.S.
Court of International Trade (CIT)
issued its final judgment in Husteel Co.,
Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court No.
19–00112, sustaining the Department of
Commerce (Commerce)’s second
remand results pertaining to the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty (AD) order on welded
line pipe (WLP) from the Republic of
Korea (Korea) covering the period
December 1, 2016, through November
30, 2017. 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 NEXTEEL Co., Ltd.
(NEXTEEL), SeAH Steel Corporation
(SeAH), and non-selected respondents.
DATES: Applicable January 13, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations,
Office II, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4136.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On June 14, 2019, Commerce
published its final results in the 2016–
2017 AD administrative review of WLP
from Korea.1 Commerce calculated
1 See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Determination of
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
10JAN1
1113
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 6 / Monday, January 10, 2022 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
weighted-average dumping margins of
38.87 percent for NEXTEEL, 27.38
percent for SeAH, and 32.49 percent for
the non-selected respondents.2 After
correcting ministerial errors contained
in the Final Results, on July 23, 2019,
Commerce published the Amended
Final Results and revised the calculated
weighted-average dumping margins for
SeAH and the non-selected respondents
to 22.70 percent and 29.89 percent,
respectively.3
Husteel Co., Ltd., Hyundai Steel Co.
(Hyundai Steel), NEXTEEL, and SeAH
appealed Commerce’s Amended Final
Results. On August 26, 2020, the CIT
remanded the Amended Final Results to
Commerce regarding its: (1) Rejection of
SeAH’s third country sales to calculate
normal value (NV); (2) particular market
situation (PMS) determination and
resulting adjustment to the reported cost
of production (COP) for WLP; (3)
reliance on the constructed value (CV)
profit ratio and selling expenses
calculated for Hyundai Steel in the first
administrative review; (4)
reclassification of NEXTEEL’s reported
losses relating to the suspended
production of certain product lines; (5)
adjustment to NEXTEEL’s CV to account
for sales of non-prime products; (6)
refusal to employ its quarterly cost
methodology to calculate SeAH’s costs;
(7) allocation of the general and
administrative expenses of SeAH’s U.S.
affiliate Pusan Pipe America (PPA)
across all of SeAH’s U.S. sales of WLP
sold through PPA; and (8) calculation of
the rate assigned to the non-examined
companies in light of any adjustments
made to the calculations for either
respondent stemming from the remand.4
Therefore, the CIT remanded the
Amended Final Results to Commerce to
provide further explanation or
reconsider its treatment of these items.
In its first remand redetermination,
issued in January 2021, Commerce
recalculated SeAH’s weighted-average
dumping margin using the company’s
Canadian sales as the basis for NV and
without making the PMS adjustment to
the COP. As a result, SeAH’s weightedaverage dumping margin was 7.24
percent.5
No Shipments; 2016–2017, 84 FR 27762 (June 14,
2019) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (IDM).
2 Id.
3 See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of
Korea: Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2016–2017, 84 FR
35371 (July 23, 2019) (Amended Final Results).
4 See Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 471 F.
Supp. 3d 1349 (CIT 2020).
5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 19–00112,
dated January 7, 2021 at 42; see also Corrected Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jan 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
On June 7, 2021, the CIT remanded
the Amended Final Results to
Commerce for a second time, ordering
Commerce to provide further
explanation or reconsideration of the
adjustment to NEXTEEL’S CV to
account for sales of non-prime products,
consistent with the Court’s opinion and
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC)’s ruling in
Dillinger.6
In its second remand redetermination,
issued in September 2021, Commerce
recalculated NEXTEEL’s weighted
average-dumping margin based on the
actual costs of prime and non-prime
merchandise reported by NEXTEEL. The
revised weighted-average dumping
margin for NEXTEEL was 11.41 percent
and the resulting review-specific
average rate for the non-selected
respondents was 9.09 percent.7 The CIT
sustained Commerce’s second
redetermination.8
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,9 as clarified
by Diamond Sawblades,10 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
January 3, 2022, judgment constitutes a
final decision of the CIT that is not in
harmony with Commerce’s Final Results
and Amended 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
judgment, Commerce is amending its
Final Results and Amended Final
Results with respect to NEXTEEL,
Remand, Consol. Court No. 19–00112, dated
January 21, 2021, where Commerce revised: (1)
NEXTEEL’s margin calculation to use SeAH’s final
revised calculations as the basis for CV profit and
selling expenses, resulting in a rate of 11.67
percent; and (2) the review-specific average rate
applicable to the non-selected respondents to be
9.21 percent.
6 See Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 520 F.
Supp. 3d 1296, 1309 (CIT 2021) (citing Dillinger
France S.A. v. United States, 981 F.3d 1318, 1321–
41 (Fed. Cir. 2020 (Dillinger)).
7 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 19–00112, Slip
Op. 21–70 dated September 2, 2021, at 5–6.
8 See Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 19–00012, Slip Op. 22–1 (CIT January 3,
2022).
9 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
10 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers
Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SeAH, and the non-selected respondents
as follows:
Producer or exporter
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd .....................
SeAH Steel Corporation .............
Companies Not Selected for Individual Review .......................
11.41
7.24
9.09
The exporters or producers not
selected for individual review are listed
in the appendix.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because NEXTEEL, SeAH, and the
non-selected companies have 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 rates for
those exporters/producers.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains
enjoined by CIT order from liquidating
entries that: Were produced and/or
exported by NEXTEEL, SeAH, and the
non-selected companies, 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 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 NEXTEEL, SeAH, and the nonselected companies 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,11 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.
11 See
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
10JAN1
1114
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 6 / Monday, January 10, 2022 / Notices
Dated: January 4, 2022.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive
functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix—Review-Specific Average
Rate Applicable to Companies Not
Selected for Individual Review
Background
On December 2, 2021, Commerce
published its final results in the 2019
administrative review of the CVD order
on certain softwood lumber from
Canada.1 On December 7, 2021,
Resolute FP Canada Inc. (Resolute)
alleged that Commerce committed a
ministerial error in the Final Results
regarding the net subsidy rate
calculation under the Provision of
Stumpage for Less Than Adequate
Remuneration (LTAR) programs of the
Government of Quebec (GOQ) and
Government of Ontario (GOO).2 On
December 13, 2021, the petitioner 3
submitted ministerial error comments,
as well as rebuttal comments arguing
that Resolute’s ministerial error
comments were untimely as they were
not submitted during the time period
specified under Commerce’s regulations
and therefore Commerce should not
change Resolute’s stumpage
calculations.4
In the Petitioner Ministerial Error
Allegation Submission, the petitioner
alleged with respect to J.D. Irving,
Limited (JDIL) that Commerce
committed ministerial errors regarding
the subsidy calculations for New
Brunswick License Management Fees,
Capital Cost Allowance for Class 1
1. AJU Besteel Co., Ltd.
2. BDP International, Inc.
3. Daewoo International Cooperation
4. Dongbu Incheon Steel Co.
5. Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.
6. Dongkuk Steel Mill
7. Dong Yang Steel Pipe
8. EEW Korea Co., Ltd.
9. Husteel Co., Ltd.
10. Hyundai RB Co. Ltd.
11. Hyundai Steel Company/Hyundai
HYSCO
12. Kelly Pipe Co., LLC.
13. Keonwoo Metals Co., Ltd.
14. Kolon Global Corp.
15. Korea Cast Iron Pipe Ind. Co., Ltd.
16. Kurvers Piping Italy S.R.L.
17. MSTEEL Co., Ltd.
18. Miju Steel MFG Co., Ltd.
19. Poongsan Valinox (Valtimet Division)
20. POSCO
21. POSCO Daewoo
22. R&R Trading Co. Ltd.
23. Sam Kang M&T Co., Ltd.
24. Sin Sung Metal Co., Ltd.
25. SK Networks
26. Soon-Hong Trading Company
27. Steel Flower Co., Ltd.
28. TGS Pipe
29. Tokyo Engineering Korea Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2022–00181 Filed 1–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–122–858]
Certain Softwood Lumber Products
From Canada: Notice of Amended
Final Results of the Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 2019
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) is amending its notice of
final results of the 2019 administrative
review of the countervailing duty (CVD)
order on certain softwood lumber
products (softwood lumber) from
Canada.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
DATES:
Applicable January 10, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan Hall-Eastman (Canfor), John
Hoffner (JDIL), Kristen Johnson/Samuel
Brummitt (Resolute), and Laura Griffith
(West Fraser), AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jan 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1468,
(202) 482–3315, (202) 482–4793/(202)
482–7851, and (202) 482–6430,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 2019, 86 FR 68467
(December 2, 2021) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
(IDM).
2 See Resolute’s Letter, ‘‘Softwood Lumber from
Canada: CVD Second Administrative Review
Ministerial Error Comments On Behalf Of Resolute
FP Canada And Affiliates,’’ dated December 7,
2021.
3 The petitioner is the Committee Overseeing
Action for Lumber International Trade
Investigations or Negotiations, an ad hoc
association whose members are: U.S. Lumber
Coalition, Inc.; Collum’s Lumber Products, L.L.C.;
Fox Lumber Sales, Inc.; Hankins, Inc.; Pleasant
River Lumber Company; PotlatchDeltic; Rex
Lumber Company; S.I. Storey Lumber Co., Inc.;
Stimson Lumber Company; Swanson Group;
Weyerhaeuser Company; Carpenters Industrial
Council; Giustina Land and Timber Company; and
Sullivan Forestry Consultants, Inc.
4 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada: Ministerial Error
Allegations,’’ dated December 13, 2021 (Petitioner
Ministerial Error Allegation Submission); see also
Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada: Response to Resolute
Ministerial Error Allegation,’’ dated December 13,
2021.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Assets, New Brunswick Gasoline & Fuel
Tax Exemptions and Refund, and Large
Industrial Renewable Energy Purchase
(LIREPP) programs.5 The petitioner also
alleged that Commerce committed
ministerial errors with respect to West
Fraser Mills Ltd. (West Fraser) regarding
the calculated benefit for lower tax rates
for Coloured Fuel/British Columbia
Coloured Fuel Certification program and
for payments made to West Fraser for
cruising and block layout activities.6 In
addition, the petitioner alleged that
Commerce miscalculated the net
subsidy rate under the Provision of
Stumpage for LTAR for the Government
of Alberta (GOA), the Government of
British Columbia (GBC), and the British
Columbia Log Export Restrictions
Restraint (LER) programs for West
Fraser.7 On December 17, 2021, JDIL
and West Fraser submitted rebuttal
comments to the Petitioner Ministerial
Error Allegation Submission.8
Scope of the Order 9
The product covered by the Order is
certain softwood lumber products from
Canada. For a complete description of
the scope of the Order, see the Issues
and Decision Memorandum in the Final
Results.
Ministerial Errors
Section 351.224(e) of Commerce’s
regulations provides that Commerce
will analyze any comments received
and, if appropriate, correct any
ministerial error by amending the final
results of the review. Section 751(h) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a
‘‘ministerial error’’ as an error ‘‘in
addition, subtraction, or other
arithmetic function, clerical error
resulting from inaccurate copying,
duplication, or the like, and any other
similar type of unintentional error
which the Secretary considers
ministerial.’’
We analyzed the ministerial error
comments and determined, in
accordance with section 751(h) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f), that
5 See Petitioner Ministerial Error Allegation
Submission.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 See JDIL’s Letter, ‘‘Softwood Lumber Products
from Canada: Reply to Petitioner’s Ministerial Error
Allegations,’’ dated December 17, 2021; see also
West Fraser’s Letter, ‘‘Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada, Case No. C–122–858: West
Fraser Mills Ltd.’s Response to Ministerial Error
Comments,’’ dated December 17, 2021.
9 See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order,
83 FR 347 (January 3, 2018) (Order).
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
10JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1112-1114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00181]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-876]
Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 3, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 19-00112, sustaining the Department of Commerce
(Commerce)'s second remand results pertaining to the administrative
review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on welded line pipe (WLP)
from the Republic of Korea (Korea) covering the period December 1,
2016, through November 30, 2017. 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 NEXTEEL
Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL), SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH), and non-selected
respondents.
DATES: Applicable January 13, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations,
Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 14, 2019, Commerce published its final results in the 2016-
2017 AD administrative review of WLP from Korea.\1\ Commerce calculated
[[Page 1113]]
weighted-average dumping margins of 38.87 percent for NEXTEEL, 27.38
percent for SeAH, and 32.49 percent for the non-selected
respondents.\2\ After correcting ministerial errors contained in the
Final Results, on July 23, 2019, Commerce published the Amended Final
Results and revised the calculated weighted-average dumping margins for
SeAH and the non-selected respondents to 22.70 percent and 29.89
percent, respectively.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017, 84 FR 27762 (June 14,
2019) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ Id.
\3\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Amended
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017,
84 FR 35371 (July 23, 2019) (Amended Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Husteel Co., Ltd., Hyundai Steel Co. (Hyundai Steel), NEXTEEL, and
SeAH appealed Commerce's Amended Final Results. On August 26, 2020, the
CIT remanded the Amended Final Results to Commerce regarding its: (1)
Rejection of SeAH's third country sales to calculate normal value (NV);
(2) particular market situation (PMS) determination and resulting
adjustment to the reported cost of production (COP) for WLP; (3)
reliance on the constructed value (CV) profit ratio and selling
expenses calculated for Hyundai Steel in the first administrative
review; (4) reclassification of NEXTEEL's reported losses relating to
the suspended production of certain product lines; (5) adjustment to
NEXTEEL's CV to account for sales of non-prime products; (6) refusal to
employ its quarterly cost methodology to calculate SeAH's costs; (7)
allocation of the general and administrative expenses of SeAH's U.S.
affiliate Pusan Pipe America (PPA) across all of SeAH's U.S. sales of
WLP sold through PPA; and (8) calculation of the rate assigned to the
non-examined companies in light of any adjustments made to the
calculations for either respondent stemming from the remand.\4\
Therefore, the CIT remanded the Amended Final Results to Commerce to
provide further explanation or reconsider its treatment of these items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 471 F. Supp. 3d 1349
(CIT 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its first remand redetermination, issued in January 2021,
Commerce recalculated SeAH's weighted-average dumping margin using the
company's Canadian sales as the basis for NV and without making the PMS
adjustment to the COP. As a result, SeAH's weighted-average dumping
margin was 7.24 percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Consol. Court No. 19-00112, dated January 7, 2021 at 42; see
also Corrected Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Consol. Court No. 19-00112, dated January 21, 2021, where
Commerce revised: (1) NEXTEEL's margin calculation to use SeAH's
final revised calculations as the basis for CV profit and selling
expenses, resulting in a rate of 11.67 percent; and (2) the review-
specific average rate applicable to the non-selected respondents to
be 9.21 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2021, the CIT remanded the Amended Final Results to
Commerce for a second time, ordering Commerce to provide further
explanation or reconsideration of the adjustment to NEXTEEL'S CV to
account for sales of non-prime products, consistent with the Court's
opinion and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)'s
ruling in Dillinger.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 520 F. Supp. 3d
1296, 1309 (CIT 2021) (citing Dillinger France S.A. v. United
States, 981 F.3d 1318, 1321-41 (Fed. Cir. 2020 (Dillinger)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its second remand redetermination, issued in September 2021,
Commerce recalculated NEXTEEL's weighted average-dumping margin based
on the actual costs of prime and non-prime merchandise reported by
NEXTEEL. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for NEXTEEL was
11.41 percent and the resulting review-specific average rate for the
non-selected respondents was 9.09 percent.\7\ The CIT sustained
Commerce's second redetermination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Consol. Court No. 19-00112, Slip Op. 21-70 dated September
2, 2021, at 5-6.
\8\ See Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court No.
19-00012, Slip Op. 22-1 (CIT January 3, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\9\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\10\ 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 January 3, 2022, judgment
constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with
Commerce's Final Results and Amended Final Results. Thus, this notice
is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\10\ 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 judgment, Commerce is amending
its Final Results and Amended Final Results with respect to NEXTEEL,
SeAH, and the non-selected respondents as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer or exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd............................................ 11.41
SeAH Steel Corporation...................................... 7.24
Companies Not Selected for Individual Review................ 9.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exporters or producers not selected for individual review are
listed in the appendix.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because NEXTEEL, SeAH, and the non-selected companies have 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 rates for
those exporters/producers.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries that: Were produced and/or exported by NEXTEEL,
SeAH, and the non-selected companies, 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 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 NEXTEEL, SeAH, and the
non-selected companies 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,\11\ we will instruct CBP to
liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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.
[[Page 1114]]
Dated: January 4, 2022.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix--Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to Companies Not
Selected for Individual Review
1. AJU Besteel Co., Ltd.
2. BDP International, Inc.
3. Daewoo International Cooperation
4. Dongbu Incheon Steel Co.
5. Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.
6. Dongkuk Steel Mill
7. Dong Yang Steel Pipe
8. EEW Korea Co., Ltd.
9. Husteel Co., Ltd.
10. Hyundai RB Co. Ltd.
11. Hyundai Steel Company/Hyundai HYSCO
12. Kelly Pipe Co., LLC.
13. Keonwoo Metals Co., Ltd.
14. Kolon Global Corp.
15. Korea Cast Iron Pipe Ind. Co., Ltd.
16. Kurvers Piping Italy S.R.L.
17. MSTEEL Co., Ltd.
18. Miju Steel MFG Co., Ltd.
19. Poongsan Valinox (Valtimet Division)
20. POSCO
21. POSCO Daewoo
22. R&R Trading Co. Ltd.
23. Sam Kang M&T Co., Ltd.
24. Sin Sung Metal Co., Ltd.
25. SK Networks
26. Soon-Hong Trading Company
27. Steel Flower Co., Ltd.
28. TGS Pipe
29. Tokyo Engineering Korea Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2022-00181 Filed 1-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
