Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results, 55398-55400 [2022-19627]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55398
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Notices
and material injury to an industry in the
United States, Commerce is publishing
this notice of continuation of the 2016
Agreement.
DATES: Applicable September 9, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sally C. Gannon or Jill Buckles, Bilateral
Agreements Unit, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202) 482–0162 or (202) 482–6230,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 20, 2016, Commerce and
substantially all producers/exporters of
lemon juice from Argentina signed the
2016 Agreement.1 On September 1,
2021, Commerce initiated,2 and the ITC
instituted,3 the second sunset review of
the suspended antidumping duty
investigation on lemon juice from
Argentina, pursuant to section 751(c) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). As a result of its review, pursuant
to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act,
Commerce determined that termination
of the 2016 Agreement and suspended
antidumping duty investigation on
lemon juice from Argentina would
likely lead to a continuation or
recurrence of dumping and notified the
ITC of the magnitude of the margins
likely to prevail, should the 2016
Agreement be terminated.4 On
September 2, 2022, pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act, the ITC published its
determination that termination of the
suspended antidumping duty
investigation on lemon juice from
Argentina would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time.5
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the 2016 Agreement
The product covered by the 2016
Agreement is lemon juice for further
manufacture, with or without addition
of preservatives, sugar, or other
1 See Lemon Juice from Argentina: Continuation
of Suspension of Antidumping Investigation, 81 FR
74395 (October 26, 2016).
2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 86
FR 48983 (September 1, 2021).
3 See Lemon Juice from Argentina; Institution of
a Five-Year Review, 86 FR 49054 (September 1,
2021).
4 See 2016 Agreement Suspending the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on Lemon Juice
from Argentina; Final Results of the Expedited
Second Sunset Review of the Suspension
Agreement, 87 FR 215 (January 4, 2022).
5 See Lemon Juice from Argentina, 87 FR 54263
(September 2, 2022) (Investigation No. 731–TA–
1105 (Second Review)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:57 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
sweeteners, regardless of the GPL (grams
per liter of citric acid) level of
concentration, brix level, brix/acid ratio,
pulp content, clarity, grade, horticulture
method (e.g., organic or not), processed
form (e.g., frozen or not-fromconcentrate), FDA standard of identity,
the size of the container in which
packed, or the method of packing.
Excluded from the scope are: (1)
Lemon juice at any level of
concentration packed in retail-sized
containers ready for sale to consumers,
typically at a level of concentration of
48 GPL; and (2) beverage products such
as lemonade that typically contain 20%
or less lemon juice as an ingredient.
Lemon juice is classifiable under
subheadings 2009.39.6020,
2009.31.6020, 2009.31.4000,
2009.31.6040, and 2009.39.6040 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the
2016 Agreement is dispositive.
Continuation of Suspension of
Investigation
As a result of the respective
determinations by Commerce and the
ITC that termination of the 2016
Agreement and suspended antidumping
duty investigation on lemon juice from
Argentina would likely lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping
and material injury to an industry in the
United States, consistent with section
751(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce hereby
gives notice of the continuation of the
2016 Agreement. The effective date of
continuation 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 review of the
2016 Agreement not later than 30 days
prior to the fifth anniversary of the
effective date of continuation.
Administrative Protective Order
pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Dated: September 2, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022–19523 Filed 9–8–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–870]
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
From the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
the Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; Notice of
Amended Final Results
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
On August 26, 2022, the U.S.
Court of International Trade (the Court
or CIT) issued its final judgment in
SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 19–00086, Slip Op.
22–100, sustaining the U.S. Department
of Commerce’s (Commerce) remand
results pertaining to the administrative
review of the antidumping duty (AD)
order on certain oil country tubular
goods (OCTG) from the Republic of
Korea (Korea) covering the period
September 1, 2016, through August 31,
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 the non-individually
examined companies who are party to
the litigation.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Applicable September 6, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
return/destruction or conversion to
judicial protective order of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3).
Failure to comply is a violation of the
APO which may be subject to sanctions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notification to Interested Parties
Background
This five-year (sunset) review and
notice are in accordance with section
751(c) of the Act and published
On May 24, 2019, Commerce
published its Final Results in the 2016–
2017 AD administrative review of OCTG
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Frank Schmitt or Mark Flessner, 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) 482–4880 or (202) 482–6312,
respectively.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Notices
from Korea.1 In this administrative
review, Commerce selected two
mandatory respondents for individual
examination: NEXTEEL and SeAH.
Commerce calculated final weightedaverage dumping margins of 32.24
percent for NEXTEEL and 16.73 percent
for SeAH; Commerce assigned to the
non-examined companies a weightedaverage dumping margin of 24.49
percent, in the Final Results.2
SeAH, NEXTEEL, AJU Besteel Co.,
Ltd. (AJU Besteel), ILJIN Steel
Corporation (ILJIN), Hyundai Steel
Company (Hyundai), and Husteel Co.,
Ltd. (Husteel), challenged the Final
Results on multiple grounds.3 In its
Remand Order, the court sustained
Commerce’s determinations with
respect to calculation of constructed
value profit based on SeAH’s thirdcountry sales from a previous segment
of the proceeding; inclusion of a penalty
in SeAH’s general and administrative
(G&A) expense ratio as supported by
substantial evidence; the differential
pricing analysis; the exclusion of freight
revenue profit; and application of an
affiliated reseller’s G&A expense ratio to
SeAH’s non-further manufactured
products. However, the Court remanded
five of Commerce’s determinations:
1. The particular market situation
determination and adjustment, for
further explanation or reconsideration.
2. The reallocation of costs for
NEXTEEL’s non-prime merchandise
based on the actual costs of prime and
nonprime products.
3. The treatment of SeAH’s
production line suspension costs, for
further explanation or reconsideration.
4. The recalculation of SeAH’s further
manufacturing cost.
5. The inclusion of SeAH’s inventory
valuation losses as G&A expenses, for
further explanation or reconsideration.4
In its final results of redetermination
pursuant to the Remand Order, issued
on July 16, 2021, Commerce
reconsidered the five determinations
listed above.5 In the Redetermination,
Commerce:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES
1 See
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2016–2017, 84 FR
24085 (May 24, 2019) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
2 Id.
3 See SeAH Steel Co. v. United States,
Consolidated Court No. 19–00086, Slip. Op. 21–43
(CIT April 14, 2021) (Remand Order).
4 Id.
5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, SeAH Steel Co. v. United States,
Consolidated Court No. 19–00086, Slip. Op. 21–43
(CIT April 14, 2021), dated July 16, 2021
(Redetermination). Note that this was the second
correction, or third filing, of these remand results.
On June 30, 2021, Commerce had issued and filed
with the Court the Final Results of Remand
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:57 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
1. Reversed the particular market
situation finding and removed the
adjustment from the margin calculations
for NEXTEEL and SeAH.
2. Reversed its finding with respect to
reallocation of NEXTEEL’s non-prime
products, relying instead on the actual
costs of prime and non-prime products
as reported by NEXTEEL.
3. Provided further explanation of the
treatment of SeAH’s production line
suspension costs.
4. Provided further explanation of the
recalculation of SeAH’s further
manufacturing cost.
5. Provided further explanation of the
inclusion of SeAH’s inventory valuation
losses as G&A expenses.
As a result, Commerce recalculated
the weighted-average dumping margins.
The weighted-average dumping margin
for NEXTEEL changed from 32.24
percent to 9.77 percent; the weightedaverage dumping margin for SeAH
changed from 16.73 percent to 5.28
percent; and the weighted-average
dumping margin for the non-examined
companies changed from 24.49 percent
to 7.53 percent.6
On August 26, 2022, the CIT fully
sustained E&C’s Redetermination:
(1) The CIT sustained Commerce’s
Redetermination with respect to the
particular market situation
determination and adjustment.7
(2) The CIT sustained Commerce’s
Redetermination with respect to the
reallocation of costs for NEXTEEL’s
non-prime merchandise based on the
actual costs of prime and nonprime
products.8
(3) The CIT sustained Commerce’s
Redetermination with respect to the
treatment of SeAH’s production line
suspension costs.9
(4) The CIT sustained Commerce’s
Redetermination with respect to the
recalculation of SeAH’s further
manufacturing cost.10
(5) The CIT sustained Commerce’s
Redetermination with respect to the
Redetermination, which contained an inadvertent
clerical error in the dumping margins listed on page
3. On July 8, 2021,the Court had issued an order
that authorized Commerce to correct this error. On
July 9, 2021, Commerce had filed with the Court its
correction to the Final Results of Remand
Redetermination, which contained yet another
inadvertent clerical error in the dumping margin for
non-individually-examined respondents on pages 3
and 66. Commerce therefore corrected the clerical
error, but did not otherwise modify the original
June 30, 2021, Remand Results.
6 Id.
7 See SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 19–00086, Slip Op. 22–100 (CIT August
26, 2022) (SeAH Judgement) at 20.
8 Id. at 23.
9 Id. at 30.
10 Id. at 36–38.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55399
inclusion of SeAH’s inventory valuation
losses as G&A expenses.11
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,12 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,13 the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit held that, pursuant to section
516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Commerce must
publish a notice of a court decision not
‘‘in harmony’’ with a Commerce
determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The
Court’s August 26, 2022, judgment
sustaining the Redetermination
constitutes a final decision of the Court
that is not in harmony with Commerce’s
Final Results. This notice is published
in fulfillment of the publication
requirement of Timken.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
judgment, Commerce is amending the
Final Results with respect to NEXTEEL,
SeAH, and the non-examined
companies who are party to this
litigation for the period September 1,
2016, through August 31, 2017. The
revised dumping margins are as follows:
Exporter/producer
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd .....................
SeAH Steel Corporation .............
Non-examined Companies 14 .....
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
9.77
5.28
7.53
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because NEXTEEL, SeAH, AJU
Besteel, Husteel, ILJIN, and Hyundai
Steel have a superseding cash deposit
rate, i.e., there have been final results
published in a subsequent
administrative review, we will not issue
11 Id.
at 42–45.
Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337,
341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
13 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
14 The non-examined companies which are
parties to this litigation and whose rates are subject
to change are: (1) AJU Besteel Co., Ltd. (AJU
Besteel); (2) Husteel Co., Ltd. (Husteel); (3) Hyundai
Steel Company (note that, on September 21, 2016,
Commerce published the final results of a changed
circumstances review with respect to OCTG from
Korea, finding that Hyundai Steel Corporation is the
successor-in-interest to Hyundai HYSCO for
purposes of determining AD cash deposits and
liabilities, see Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review:
Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of
Korea, 81 FR 64873 (September 21, 2016); Hyundai
Steel Corporation is also known as Hyundai Steel
Company and Hyundai Steel Co. Ltd.) (Hyundai
Steel); and (4) ILJIN Steel Corporation (ILJIN).
12 See
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55400
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Notices
revised cash deposit instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
This notice will not affect the current
cash deposit rates.
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, AJU
Besteel, Husteel, ILJIN, and Hyundai
Steel, and were entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption
during the period September 1, 2016,
through August 31, 2017. Liquidation of
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 ADs on unliquidated entries of
subject merchandise produced and/or
exported by NEXTEEL, SeAH, AJU
Besteel, Husteel, ILJIN, and Hyundai
Steel, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to
assess ADs on all appropriate entries
covered by this review when the
importer-specific ad valorem
assessment rate is not zero or de
minimis. Where an importer-specific ad
valorem assessment rate is zero or de
minimis,15 we will instruct CBP to
liquidate the appropriate entries
without regard to ADs.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516(A)(c) and
(e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Background
On May 6, 2022, Commerce published
the Preliminary Results of this
administrative review and invited
parties to comment on the Preliminary
Results.1 This administrative review
covers 328 companies.2 Commerce
selected Maharaja International
(Maharaja) and Mangal Steel Enterprises
Limited (Mangal) as the two
respondents for individual
examination.3 For a complete
description of the events that followed
the Preliminary Results, see the Issues
and Decision Memorandum.4
Commerce conducted this
administrative review in accordance
with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order 5
The merchandise covered by the
scope of this Order is carbon and alloy
steel threaded rod from India. A
complete description of the scope of the
Order is contained in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.6
Dated: September 6, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs that were submitted by
[FR Doc. 2022–19627 Filed 9–8–22; 8:45 am]
1 See Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod from
India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 2019–2021, 87 FR 27107
(May 6, 2022) (Preliminary Results), and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 86 FR
31282 (June 11, 2021) (Initiation Notice); see also
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 87 FR 21619 (April 12,
2022).
3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Respondent Selection,’’
dated July 16, 2021.
4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod from India;
2019–2021,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby
adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision
Memorandum).
5 See Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod from
India: Amended Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order,
85 FR 19925 (April 9, 2020) (Order).
6 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
‘‘Scope of the Order.’’
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–887]
Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod
From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 2019–2021
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Commerce (Commerce) determines that
carbon and alloy steel threaded rod
AGENCY:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES
(steel threaded rod) from India is not
being sold in the United States at below
normal value. The period of review
(POR) is September 25, 2019, through
March 31, 2021.
DATES: Applicable September 9, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicolas Mayora, AD/CVD Operations,
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3053.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
15 See
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:57 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
interested parties in this review are
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum. A list of the issues is
attached to this notice at Appendix I.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum
is a public document and is made
available to the public via Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users
at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum is available at
https://access.trade.gov/public/
FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we made certain
changes to the margin calculations.
However, those adjustments did not
result in any changes to the estimated
weighted-average dumping margins
calculated for these final results. For a
discussion of these changes, see the
‘‘Discussion of the Issues’’ section of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Rate for Non-Examined Companies
The Act and Commerce’s regulations
do not address the establishment of a
rate to be applied to companies not
selected for examination when
Commerce limits its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally,
Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of
the Act, which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in a
market economy investigation, for
guidance when calculating the rate for
companies which were not selected for
individual examination in an
administrative review. Under section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others
rate is normally ‘‘an amount equal to the
weighted average of the estimated
weighted-average dumping margins
established for exporters and producers
individually investigated, excluding any
zero and de minimis margins, and any
margins determined entirely {on the
basis of facts available}.’’
Where the dumping margin for
individually examined respondents are
all zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of
the Act provides that Commerce may
use ‘‘any reasonable method to establish
the estimated all-others rate for
exporters and producers not
individually investigated, including
averaging the estimated weighted
average dumping margins determined
for the exporters and producers
individually investigated.’’ Further,
Congress, in the SAA, stated that when
‘‘the dumping margins for all of the
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55398-55400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19627]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-870]
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 26, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the
Court or CIT) issued its final judgment in SeAH Steel Corp. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 19-00086, Slip Op. 22-100, sustaining the
U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) remand results pertaining to
the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain
oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea)
covering the period September 1, 2016, through August 31, 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 the non-individually examined companies who are
party to the litigation.
DATES: Applicable September 6, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Schmitt or Mark Flessner, 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) 482-4880 or (202) 482-6312,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 24, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2016-
2017 AD administrative review of OCTG
[[Page 55399]]
from Korea.\1\ In this administrative review, Commerce selected two
mandatory respondents for individual examination: NEXTEEL and SeAH.
Commerce calculated final weighted-average dumping margins of 32.24
percent for NEXTEEL and 16.73 percent for SeAH; Commerce assigned to
the non-examined companies a weighted-average dumping margin of 24.49
percent, in the Final Results.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2016-2017, 84 FR 24085 (May 24, 2019) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH, NEXTEEL, AJU Besteel Co., Ltd. (AJU Besteel), ILJIN Steel
Corporation (ILJIN), Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai), and Husteel Co.,
Ltd. (Husteel), challenged the Final Results on multiple grounds.\3\ In
its Remand Order, the court sustained Commerce's determinations with
respect to calculation of constructed value profit based on SeAH's
third-country sales from a previous segment of the proceeding;
inclusion of a penalty in SeAH's general and administrative (G&A)
expense ratio as supported by substantial evidence; the differential
pricing analysis; the exclusion of freight revenue profit; and
application of an affiliated reseller's G&A expense ratio to SeAH's
non-further manufactured products. However, the Court remanded five of
Commerce's determinations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, Consolidated Court No.
19-00086, Slip. Op. 21-43 (CIT April 14, 2021) (Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The particular market situation determination and adjustment,
for further explanation or reconsideration.
2. The reallocation of costs for NEXTEEL's non-prime merchandise
based on the actual costs of prime and nonprime products.
3. The treatment of SeAH's production line suspension costs, for
further explanation or reconsideration.
4. The recalculation of SeAH's further manufacturing cost.
5. The inclusion of SeAH's inventory valuation losses as G&A
expenses, for further explanation or reconsideration.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final results of redetermination pursuant to the Remand
Order, issued on July 16, 2021, Commerce reconsidered the five
determinations listed above.\5\ In the Redetermination, Commerce:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, Consolidated Court No. 19-
00086, Slip. Op. 21-43 (CIT April 14, 2021), dated July 16, 2021
(Redetermination). Note that this was the second correction, or
third filing, of these remand results. On June 30, 2021, Commerce
had issued and filed with the Court the Final Results of Remand
Redetermination, which contained an inadvertent clerical error in
the dumping margins listed on page 3. On July 8, 2021,the Court had
issued an order that authorized Commerce to correct this error. On
July 9, 2021, Commerce had filed with the Court its correction to
the Final Results of Remand Redetermination, which contained yet
another inadvertent clerical error in the dumping margin for non-
individually-examined respondents on pages 3 and 66. Commerce
therefore corrected the clerical error, but did not otherwise modify
the original June 30, 2021, Remand Results.
1. Reversed the particular market situation finding and removed the
adjustment from the margin calculations for NEXTEEL and SeAH.
2. Reversed its finding with respect to reallocation of NEXTEEL's
non-prime products, relying instead on the actual costs of prime and
non-prime products as reported by NEXTEEL.
3. Provided further explanation of the treatment of SeAH's
production line suspension costs.
4. Provided further explanation of the recalculation of SeAH's
further manufacturing cost.
5. Provided further explanation of the inclusion of SeAH's
inventory valuation losses as G&A expenses.
As a result, Commerce recalculated the weighted-average dumping
margins. The weighted-average dumping margin for NEXTEEL changed from
32.24 percent to 9.77 percent; the weighted-average dumping margin for
SeAH changed from 16.73 percent to 5.28 percent; and the weighted-
average dumping margin for the non-examined companies changed from
24.49 percent to 7.53 percent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 26, 2022, the CIT fully sustained E&C's Redetermination:
(1) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to
the particular market situation determination and adjustment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 19-
00086, Slip Op. 22-100 (CIT August 26, 2022) (SeAH Judgement) at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to
the reallocation of costs for NEXTEEL's non-prime merchandise based on
the actual costs of prime and nonprime products.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to
the treatment of SeAH's production line suspension costs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to
the recalculation of SeAH's further manufacturing cost.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 36-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to
the inclusion of SeAH's inventory valuation losses as G&A expenses.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 42-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\12\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\13\ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held
that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision not ``in
harmony'' with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of
entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's August 26,
2022, judgment sustaining the Redetermination constitutes a final
decision of the Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final
Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication
requirement of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
\13\ 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 NEXTEEL, SeAH, and the non-examined
companies who are party to this litigation for the period September 1,
2016, through August 31, 2017. The revised dumping margins are as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The non-examined companies which are parties to this
litigation and whose rates are subject to change are: (1) AJU
Besteel Co., Ltd. (AJU Besteel); (2) Husteel Co., Ltd. (Husteel);
(3) Hyundai Steel Company (note that, on September 21, 2016,
Commerce published the final results of a changed circumstances
review with respect to OCTG from Korea, finding that Hyundai Steel
Corporation is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai HYSCO for
purposes of determining AD cash deposits and liabilities, see Notice
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review:
Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea, 81 FR 64873
(September 21, 2016); Hyundai Steel Corporation is also known as
Hyundai Steel Company and Hyundai Steel Co. Ltd.) (Hyundai Steel);
and (4) ILJIN Steel Corporation (ILJIN).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter/producer dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd............................................ 9.77
SeAH Steel Corporation...................................... 5.28
Non-examined Companies \14\................................. 7.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because NEXTEEL, SeAH, AJU Besteel, Husteel, ILJIN, and Hyundai
Steel have a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final
results published in a subsequent administrative review, we will not
issue
[[Page 55400]]
revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP). This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rates.
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, AJU Besteel, Husteel, ILJIN, and Hyundai Steel, and were entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period
September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017. Liquidation of 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 ADs on unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise produced and/or exported by NEXTEEL, SeAH, AJU Besteel,
Husteel, ILJIN, and Hyundai Steel, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess ADs on all appropriate
entries covered by this review when the importer-specific ad valorem
assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where an importer-specific
ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis,\15\ we will instruct
CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to ADs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516(A)(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 6, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-19627 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
