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, 55396-55397 [2022-19631]

Download as PDF 55396 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Notices jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.5225; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.0640; 4412.32.0665; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.2610; 4412.32.2625; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.3225; 4412.32.5600; 4412.32.5700; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; 4418.74.2000; 4418.74.9000; 4418.75.4000; 4418.75.7000; 4418.79.0100; and 9801.00.2500. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive. Final Results of Review Based on the comments received 8 and finding no information or evidence on the record that calls into question the Preliminary Results, we continue to find that MLWF that is produced and exported by Yuhua and sold through ATimber is excluded from the Order.9 Consequently, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that when Yuhua is the producer and exporter of MLWF sold through (i.e., invoiced by) A-Timber, Yuhua’s exclusion from the Order applies to 8 See 9 See Yuhua et al.’s Letter. Preliminary Results, 87 FR at 45750. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Sep 08, 2022 Jkt 256001 entries of such merchandise. That is, the exclusion would not apply to MLWF produced and/or exported by a Chinese entity other than Yuhua and sold through A-Timber. We will also instruct CBP to terminate any suspension of liquidation on MLWF produced and exported by Yuhua and sold through ATimber, and retroactively apply this determination to all unliquidated entries of such merchandise. We note that draft instructions to CBP were released to interested parties on July 28, 2022, and we received no comments.10 Accordingly, we intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no sooner than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). Administrative Protective Order (APO) This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an 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 the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(i). Dated: August 25, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2022–19528 Filed 9–8–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 10 See Memorandum, ‘‘Draft Customs Instructions,’’ dated July 28, 2022. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. SUMMARY: On August 29, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the Court or CIT) issued its final judgment in SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 20–00150, Slip Op. 22–101, 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, 2017, through August 31, 2018. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT’s final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce’s Final Results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margin assigned to SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH). DATES: Applicable September 8, 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: AGENCY: Background On July 13, 2020, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2017– 2018 AD administrative review of OCTG from Korea.1 In this administrative review, Commerce selected two mandatory respondents for individual examination: Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) and SeAH. Commerce calculated weighted-average dumping margins of 0.00 percent for Hyundai Steel, 3.96 percent for SeAH, and 3.96 percent for the non-examined companies in the Final Results.2 SeAH 1 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017–2018, 85 FR 41949 (July 13, 2020) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 Id. E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Notices jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES challenged the Final Results on multiple grounds.3 In its Remand Order, the Court sustained Commerce’s determination with respect to two issues: (1) the calculation of profit as included in SeAH’s constructed export price; 4 and (2) the exclusion of freight revenue in calculating SeAH’s constructed export price.5 However, the Court remanded two of Commerce’s determinations: 1. Particular market situation (PMS), finding that substantial record evidence does not support Commerce’s cumulative determination that a PMS existed in Korea for the 2017–2018 period of review (POR), thus, the issue required further consideration or explanation.6 2. The application of Cohen’s d test, as part of the differential pricing analysis, for further explanation of whether potential limits on the applicability of the Cohen’s d test as enumerated in Stupp 7 were satisfied or whether those limits need not be observed when Commerce uses the Cohen’s d test.8 In its final results of redetermination pursuant to the Remand Order issued on July 16, 2021, Commerce reconsidered the two determinations listed above.9 In the Redetermination, Commerce: 1. Reversed the PMS finding and removed the adjustment from the margin calculations for SeAH. 2. Determined that it was not necessary to address the issue of applicability of the Cohen’s d test because, having reversed the PMS finding, the weighted-average dumping margin is either zero or de minimis regardless of which comparison method is used, thus rendering the differential pricing analysis moot. As a result, Commerce recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin for SeAH, which changed from 3.96 percent to 0.00 percent.10 On August 29, 2022, the CIT issued its final judgment in SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 20–00150, Slip Op. 22–101, 3 See generally SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, 539 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (CIT 2022) (Remand Order). 4 Id., 539 F. Supp. 3d at 1366. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 See Stupp v. United States, 5 F.4th 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Stupp). 8 See Remand Order, 539 F. Supp. 3d at 1351 and 1366. 9 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Consolidated Court No. 20–00150, Slip. Op. 21–146 (CIT October 19, 2021), dated January 24, 2022 (Redetermination). 10 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Sep 08, 2022 Jkt 256001 fully sustaining Commerce’s Redetermination: 11 (1) The CIT sustained Commerce’s Redetermination with respect to the PMS determination and adjustment.12 (2) The CIT sustained Commerce’s Redetermination with respect to not applying the differential pricing analysis to calculate SeAH’s dumping margin because SeAH’s dumping margin is either zero or de minimis, regardless of which comparison method is used.13 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,14 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,15 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 29, 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 decision, Commerce is amending the Final Results with respect to SeAH for the period September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018. The revised dumping margin is as follows: Exporter/producer Weightedaverage dumping margin (percent) SeAH Steel Corporation ............. 0.00 Cash Deposit Requirements Because SeAH has had 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. 11 See SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 20–00150, Slip Op. 22–101 (CIT August 29, 2022) (SeAH Steel Judgement). 12 Id. at 10–11. 13 Id. at 12. 14 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 15 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 55397 Liquidation of Suspended Entries At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that were produced and exported by SeAH, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018. 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 exported by SeAH, 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,16 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. Dated: September 6, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2022–19631 Filed 9–8–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–357–818] Lemon Juice From Argentina: Continuation of Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the respective determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that termination of the 2016 Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Lemon Juice from Argentina (2016 Agreement) and the underlying antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Argentina would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping AGENCY: 16 See E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 09SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55396-55397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19631]


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

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 29, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the 
Court or CIT) issued its final judgment in SeAH Steel Corporation v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 20-00150, Slip Op. 22-101, 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, 2017, through August 31, 2018. 
Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not 
in harmony with Commerce's Final Results of the administrative review, 
and that Commerce is amending the Final Results with respect to the 
dumping margin assigned to SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH).

DATES: Applicable September 8, 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 July 13, 2020, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2017-
2018 AD administrative review of OCTG from Korea.\1\ In this 
administrative review, Commerce selected two mandatory respondents for 
individual examination: Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) and SeAH. 
Commerce calculated weighted-average dumping margins of 0.00 percent 
for Hyundai Steel, 3.96 percent for SeAH, and 3.96 percent for the non-
examined companies in the Final Results.\2\ SeAH

[[Page 55397]]

challenged the Final Results on multiple grounds.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of 
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2017-2018, 85 FR 41949 (July 13, 2020) (Final Results), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ See generally SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, 539 F. 
Supp. 3d 1341 (CIT 2022) (Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Remand Order, the Court sustained Commerce's determination 
with respect to two issues: (1) the calculation of profit as included 
in SeAH's constructed export price; \4\ and (2) the exclusion of 
freight revenue in calculating SeAH's constructed export price.\5\ 
However, the Court remanded two of Commerce's determinations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id., 539 F. Supp. 3d at 1366.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Particular market situation (PMS), finding that substantial 
record evidence does not support Commerce's cumulative determination 
that a PMS existed in Korea for the 2017-2018 period of review (POR), 
thus, the issue required further consideration or explanation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The application of Cohen's d test, as part of the differential 
pricing analysis, for further explanation of whether potential limits 
on the applicability of the Cohen's d test as enumerated in Stupp \7\ 
were satisfied or whether those limits need not be observed when 
Commerce uses the Cohen's d test.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Stupp v. United States, 5 F.4th 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021) 
(Stupp).
    \8\ See Remand Order, 539 F. Supp. 3d at 1351 and 1366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its final results of redetermination pursuant to the Remand 
Order issued on July 16, 2021, Commerce reconsidered the two 
determinations listed above.\9\ In the Redetermination, Commerce:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Consolidated Court No. 
20-00150, Slip. Op. 21-146 (CIT October 19, 2021), dated January 24, 
2022 (Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Reversed the PMS finding and removed the adjustment from the 
margin calculations for SeAH.
    2. Determined that it was not necessary to address the issue of 
applicability of the Cohen's d test because, having reversed the PMS 
finding, the weighted-average dumping margin is either zero or de 
minimis regardless of which comparison method is used, thus rendering 
the differential pricing analysis moot.
    As a result, Commerce recalculated the weighted-average dumping 
margin for SeAH, which changed from 3.96 percent to 0.00 percent.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 29, 2022, the CIT issued its final judgment in SeAH Steel 
Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 20-00150, Slip Op. 22-
101, fully sustaining Commerce's Redetermination: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court 
No. 20-00150, Slip Op. 22-101 (CIT August 29, 2022) (SeAH Steel 
Judgement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to 
the PMS determination and adjustment.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to 
not applying the differential pricing analysis to calculate SeAH's 
dumping margin because SeAH's dumping margin is either zero or de 
minimis, regardless of which comparison method is used.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\14\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\15\ 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 29, 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
    \15\ 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 SeAH for the period September 1, 
2017, through August 31, 2018. The revised dumping margin is as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                     Exporter/producer                         dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel Corporation.....................................        0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because SeAH has had 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.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from 
liquidating entries that were produced and exported by SeAH, and were 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period 
September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018. 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 exported by SeAH, 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,\16\ we will instruct 
CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to ADs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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. 2022-19631 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P