Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 56400-56401 [2022-19859]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56400
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Notices
USMCA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230, 202–482–5438.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Article
10.12 of Chapter 10 of USMCA provides
a dispute settlement mechanism
involving trade remedy determinations
issued by the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada, and
the Government of Mexico. Following a
Request for Panel Review, a Binational
Panel is composed to review the trade
remedy determination being challenged
and issue a binding Panel Decision.
There are established USMCA Rules of
Procedure for Article 10.12 (Binational
Panel Reviews), which were adopted by
the three governments for panels
requested pursuant to Article 10.12(2) of
USMCA which requires Requests for
Panel Review to be published in
accordance with Rule 40. For the
complete Rules, please see https://canmex-usa-sec.org/secretariat/agreementaccord-acuerdo/usmca-aceum-tmec/
rules-regles-reglas/article-articlearticulo_10_12.aspx?lang=eng.
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may
challenge the final determination in
whole or in part by filing a Complaint
in accordance with Rule 44 no later than
30 days after the filing of the first
Request for Panel Review (the deadline
for filing a Complaint is October 11,
2022);
(b) A Party, an investigating authority
or other interested person who does not
file a Complaint but who intends to
participate in the panel review shall file
a Notice of Appearance in accordance
with Rule 45 no later than 45 days after
the filing of the first Request for Panel
Review (the deadline for filing a Notice
of Appearance is October 24, 2022);
(c) The panel review will be limited
to the allegations of error of fact or law,
including challenges to the jurisdiction
of the investigating authority, that are
set out in the Complaints filed in the
panel review and to the procedural and
substantive defenses raised in the panel
review.
[A–549–502]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: September 9, 2022.
Vidya Desai,
U.S. Secretary, USMCA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2022–19880 Filed 9–13–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
International Trade Administration
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes
and Tubes From Thailand: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
the Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review; Notice of
Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review;
2016–2017
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 17, 2021, the
U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)
issued its final judgment in Saha Thai
Steel Pipe Public Company Ltd. et al. v.
United States, 538 F. Supp. 3d 1350
(CIT 2021) (Saha Thai III), sustaining
the U.S. Department of Commerce’s
(Commerce) second and final results of
redetermination pertaining to the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on circular
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes
(pipes and tubes) from Thailand
covering the period of review (POR)
March 1, 2016, through February 28,
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
of review with respect to the weightedaverage dumping margin assigned to
Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited
(Pacific Pipe), Saha Thai Steel Pipe
(Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai), and
Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd. (Thai
Premium).
DATES: Applicable September 27, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VII, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–3797.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On October 15, 2018, Commerce
published its Final Results of the 2016–
2017 antidumping duty administrative
review of pipes and tubes from
Thailand.1 In the Final Results,
Commerce determined that a particular
market situation (PMS) existed in the
1 See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and
Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2016–2017, 83 FR
51927 (October 15, 2018) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Sep 13, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Thai pipes and tubes market related to
purchases of hot-rolled coil during the
POR.
Mandatory respondents Pacific Pipe,
Saha Thai, and Thai Premium
challenged Commerce’s Final Results
before the CIT. On December 18, 2019,
the CIT remanded the Final Results to
Commerce for further consideration,
holding that the PMS adjustment was
not in accordance with law.2
Specifically, the CIT stated that,
although section 773(e) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act) ‘‘grants
Commerce discretion to adjust a
respondent’s cost of production in an
antidumping margin calculation upon
finding a particular market situation, the
margin calculation must be based on a
comparison of U.S. prices to constructed
value, not home-market or third-country
prices.’’ 3
In the First Redetermination issued in
March 2020, Commerce continued to
find that a cost-based PMS existed in
Thailand that distorted the price of hot
rolled coil.4 Also, in response to the
CIT’s decision in Saha Thai II that,
where Commerce determined a PMS
existed, the PMS adjustment is limited
to situations where normal value is
based on constructed value, Commerce
revised the margin calculations by
basing normal value entirely on
constructed value, and it continued to
adjust each respondent’s hot-rolled coil
costs to account for the cost-based
PMS.5
In December 2020, the CIT again
remanded the issue to Commerce,
holding that Commerce’s First
Redetermination was not in accordance
with law. The CIT ordered Commerce to
‘‘remove the cost-based {PMS}
determinations and recalculate the
relevant margins without a {PMS}
adjustment.’’ 6 The CIT held that
nothing in the Act grants Commerce
‘‘authority to bypass the sales-belowcost test, and the specificity of the { }
test leaves no ambiguity.’’ 7
In the Second Redetermination, under
protest, Commerce removed the costbased PMS adjustments, and based
normal value on each respondent’s
2 See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United
States, 422 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1367–70, 1372 (CIT
2019).
3 Id., 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1369.
4 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co.,
Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 18–00214, Slip Op.
19–165, dated March 10, 2020 (First
Redetermination).
5 See First Redetermination.
6 See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United
States, 487 F. Supp. 3d 1323, 1331–35 (CIT 2020)
(Saha Thai II).
7 Id., 487 F. Supp. 3d at 1331–35.
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
56401
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Notices
respective home market sale prices.8
Commerce also reasserted its affirmative
cost-based PMS determination and
emphasized that ‘‘the clear intent of
Congress’’ was for Commerce to remedy
a PMS, despite its inability to provide
such a remedy because of the CIT’s
order.9 On September 17, 2021, the CIT
issued an opinion sustaining
Commerce’s Second Redetermination.10
The CIT held that Commerce’s
continued PMS finding in the Second
Redetermination was moot because
Commerce’s recalculation of the
respondents’ weighted-average dumping
margins, without a cost-based PMS
adjustment, was consistent with the
CIT’s order and the affirmative PMS
determination would have no practical
significance.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 sections
516A(c) and (e) of 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
September 17, 2021, judgment
constitutes a final decision of the CIT
that is not in harmony with Commerce’s
Final Results. Thus, this notice is
published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
judgment, Commerce is amending its
Final Results with respect to Pacific
Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium.
The revised dumping margins are as
follows:
Exporter/producer
Final results of
review:
weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Final results of
redetermination: weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
30.61
28.00
30.98
7.38
0.00
5.23
Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited ......................................................................................................................
Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. ........................................................................................................
Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd. ..........................................................................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and
Thai Premium each 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).
These amended final results of review
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 Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and
Thai Premium, and were entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption during the period March
1, 2016, through February 28, 2017.
These entries will remain enjoined
unless the injunction is lifted by the
court, pursuant to the terms of the
injunction, during the pendency of any
appeals process.
In the event the CIT’s ruling is upheld
by a final and conclusive court decision,
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review from Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai,
and Thai Premium when the importer8 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co.
Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 18–00214, Slip Op.
20–181, dated March 15, 2020 (Second
Redetermination).
9 Id. at 2–3.
10 See Saha Thai III.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Sep 13, 2022
Jkt 256001
specific ad valorem assessment rate is
not zero or de minimis. Where either the
respondent’s weighted-average dumping
margin is zero or de minimis within the
meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an
importer-specific ad valorem
assessment rate is zero or de minimis,
we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate
the appropriate entries without regard
antidumping duties.14
Commerce’s ‘‘reseller policy’’ will
apply to entries of subject merchandise
during the POR produced by companies
included in these final results of review
for which the reviewed companies did
not know that the merchandise they
sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
trading company, or exporter) was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction.15
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 Id.,
538 F. Supp. 3d at 1353–54.
Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
13 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers
Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
12 See
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: September 8, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022–19859 Filed 9–13–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement (USMCA), Article 10.12:
Binational Panel Review: Notice of
Request for Panel Review
United States Section, USMCA
Secretariat, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of USMCA request for
panel review.
AGENCY:
A Request for Panel Review
was filed on behalf of the Government
of Canada; Conseil de l’industrie
forestie`re du Que´bec, Ontario Forest
Industries Association; Canfor
Corporation, Fontaine, Inc., Mobilier
Rustique (Beauce) Inc., Resolute FP
Canada Inc., Tolko Marketing and Sales
Ltd., Tolko Industries Ltd., Gilbert
Smith Forest Products, and West Fraser
SUMMARY:
14 See
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
a full discussion of this practice, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954
(May 6, 2003).
15 For
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56400-56401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19859]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-502]
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review; 2016-2017
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company
Ltd. et al. v. United States, 538 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (CIT 2021) (Saha
Thai III), sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce)
second and final results of redetermination pertaining to the
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand covering
the period of review (POR) March 1, 2016, through February 28, 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 of review with respect
to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Pacific Pipe Public
Company Limited (Pacific Pipe), Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company,
Ltd. (Saha Thai), and Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd. (Thai Premium).
DATES: Applicable September 27, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 15, 2018, Commerce published its Final Results of the
2016-2017 antidumping duty administrative review of pipes and tubes
from Thailand.\1\ In the Final Results, Commerce determined that a
particular market situation (PMS) existed in the Thai pipes and tubes
market related to purchases of hot-rolled coil during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2016-2017, 83 FR 51927 (October 15, 2018) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory respondents Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium
challenged Commerce's Final Results before the CIT. On December 18,
2019, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce for further
consideration, holding that the PMS adjustment was not in accordance
with law.\2\ Specifically, the CIT stated that, although section 773(e)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) ``grants Commerce
discretion to adjust a respondent's cost of production in an
antidumping margin calculation upon finding a particular market
situation, the margin calculation must be based on a comparison of U.S.
prices to constructed value, not home-market or third-country prices.''
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 422
F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1367-70, 1372 (CIT 2019).
\3\ Id., 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the First Redetermination issued in March 2020, Commerce
continued to find that a cost-based PMS existed in Thailand that
distorted the price of hot rolled coil.\4\ Also, in response to the
CIT's decision in Saha Thai II that, where Commerce determined a PMS
existed, the PMS adjustment is limited to situations where normal value
is based on constructed value, Commerce revised the margin calculations
by basing normal value entirely on constructed value, and it continued
to adjust each respondent's hot-rolled coil costs to account for the
cost-based PMS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court
No. 18-00214, Slip Op. 19-165, dated March 10, 2020 (First
Redetermination).
\5\ See First Redetermination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2020, the CIT again remanded the issue to Commerce,
holding that Commerce's First Redetermination was not in accordance
with law. The CIT ordered Commerce to ``remove the cost-based
{PMS{time} determinations and recalculate the relevant margins without
a {PMS{time} adjustment.'' \6\ The CIT held that nothing in the Act
grants Commerce ``authority to bypass the sales-below-cost test, and
the specificity of the { {time} test leaves no ambiguity.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 487
F. Supp. 3d 1323, 1331-35 (CIT 2020) (Saha Thai II).
\7\ Id., 487 F. Supp. 3d at 1331-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Second Redetermination, under protest, Commerce removed the
cost-based PMS adjustments, and based normal value on each respondent's
[[Page 56401]]
respective home market sale prices.\8\ Commerce also reasserted its
affirmative cost-based PMS determination and emphasized that ``the
clear intent of Congress'' was for Commerce to remedy a PMS, despite
its inability to provide such a remedy because of the CIT's order.\9\
On September 17, 2021, the CIT issued an opinion sustaining Commerce's
Second Redetermination.\10\ The CIT held that Commerce's continued PMS
finding in the Second Redetermination was moot because Commerce's
recalculation of the respondents' weighted-average dumping margins,
without a cost-based PMS adjustment, was consistent with the CIT's
order and the affirmative PMS determination would have no practical
significance.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, Court
No. 18-00214, Slip Op. 20-181, dated March 15, 2020 (Second
Redetermination).
\9\ Id. at 2-3.
\10\ See Saha Thai III.
\11\ Id., 538 F. Supp. 3d at 1353-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 sections 516A(c) and (e) of 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 September 17, 2021, judgment
constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with
Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment
of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\13\ 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 with respect to Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai
Premium. The revised dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final results
of review: Final results of
weighted- redetermination:
Exporter/producer average weighted-average
dumping dumping margin
margin (percent)
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited... 30.61 7.38
Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, 28.00 0.00
Ltd..................................
Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd......... 30.98 5.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium each 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). These amended final results of review 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 Pacific Pipe,
Saha Thai, and Thai Premium, and were entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption during the period March 1, 2016, through
February 28, 2017. These entries will remain enjoined unless the
injunction is lifted by the court, pursuant to the terms of the
injunction, during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event the CIT's ruling is upheld by a final and conclusive
court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review from Pacific
Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium when the importer-specific ad valorem
assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where either the
respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis
within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific ad
valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we intend to instruct
CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard antidumping
duties.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce's ``reseller policy'' will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,
68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 8, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-19859 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
