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 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