Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan and the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Sunset Reviews, Reinstatement of Antidumping Duty Orders, and Reconduction of Sunset Reviews, 53392-53393 [2024-14029]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
53392
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2024 / Notices
supporting documents, upon the request of
either agency.
(I) I understand that the claims made
herein, and the substantiating
documentation, are subject to verification by
CBP and/or Commerce.
(J) I understand that failure to maintain the
required certification and supporting
documentation, or failure to substantiate the
claims made herein, or not allowing CBP
and/or Commerce to verify the claims made
herein, may result in a de facto
determination that all sales to which this
certification applies are sales of merchandise
that is covered by the scope of the
antidumping and countervailing duty orders
on solar cells and solar modules from China.
I understand that such a finding will result
in:
(i) suspension of liquidation of all
unliquidated entries (and entries for which
liquidation has not become final) for which
these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the
antidumping and countervailing duty cash
deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the seller/exporter no longer being
allowed to participate in the certification
process.
(K) I understand that agents of the exporter,
such as freight forwarding companies or
brokers, are not permitted to make this
certification.
(L) This certification was completed and
signed, and a copy of the certification was
provided to the importer, on, or prior to, the
date of shipment if the shipment date is more
than 14 days after the date of publication of
the notice of Commerce’s preliminary
determination of circumvention in the
Federal Register. If the shipment date is on
or before the 14th day after the date of
publication of the notice of Commerce’s
preliminary determination of circumvention
in the Federal Register, this certification was
completed and signed, and a copy of the
certification was provided to the importer, by
no later than 45 days after publication of the
notice of Commerce’s preliminary
determination of circumvention in the
Federal Register.
(M) I am aware that U.S. law (including,
but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes
criminal sanctions on individuals who
knowingly and willfully make materially
false statements to the U.S. government.
Signature
{NAME OF COMPANY OFFICIAL}
{TITLE OF COMPANY OFFICIAL}
lll
Date
[FR Doc. 2024–14033 Filed 6–25–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–583–848, A–570–972]
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents
From Taiwan and the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the
Results of Antidumping Sunset
Reviews, Reinstatement of
Antidumping Duty Orders, and
Reconduction of Sunset Reviews
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 28, 2024, the U.S.
Court of International Trade (CIT)
issued its final judgment in Archroma
U.S., Inc., v. United States et al., Court
No. 22–00354, finding that the
regulatory provision upon which the
U.S. Department of Commerce relied to
revoke the antidumping duty orders on
stilbenic optical brightening agents
(OBAs) from Taiwan and the People’s
Republic of China (China) violates
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act) and ordering the
U.S. Department of Commerce
(Commerce) to: accept the domestic
interested party Archroma U.S., Inc.’s
(Archroma) substantive response; and
conduct a full sunset reviews of these
orders. Commerce is notifying the
public that the CIT’s final judgment is
not in harmony with Commerce’s final
results of the sunset reviews, and that
Commerce intends to: reinstate the
antidumping duty orders on OBAs from
Taiwan and China; accept Archroma’s
substantive response; and conduct full
sunset reviews of these orders under
section 751(c)(1) and (d)(2) of the Act.
Commerce will begin reconducting the
sunset reviews on July 1, 2024.
DATES: Applicable June 7, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Weiner, AD/CVD Operations,
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3902.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On May 10, 2012, Commerce
published the antidumping duty orders
on OBAs from Taiwan and China in the
Federal Register.1 On October 3, 2022,
1 See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents
from Taiwan: Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order, 77 FR 27419 (May 10, 2012); and
Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from
the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Jun 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commerce initiated the sunset reviews
of the Orders.2
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d), the
publication of a sunset review notice of
initiation in the Federal Register
establishes two deadlines: a 15-day
notice of intent to participate; and a 30day submission of ‘‘complete
substantive responses.’’ On October 24,
2022, six days after the 15-day deadline
(i.e., October 18, 2022), Archroma
submitted its notice of intent to
participate in the sunset reviews of the
Orders; Archroma submitted its
substantive response by the requisite
deadline. Consequently, Commerce
rejected Archroma’s notice of intent to
participate because it was untimely, and
consequently rejected Archroma’s
substantive response as unsolicited due
to Archroma’s failure to submit a timely
notice of intent to participate.3 Despite
Archroma’s subsequent requests for
reconsideration,4 Commerce made no
change to its decisions in this regard.5
On December 29, 2022, Commerce
issued its final results in the sunset
reviews of the Orders.6 Because no
domestic interested party responded to
Commerce’s notice of initiation by the
applicable deadline, Commerce revoked
the Orders consistent with section
751(c)(3)(A) of the Act.7 Archroma
subsequently challenged Commerce’s
Final Results at the CIT on that same
day.
The CIT held that Commerce could
not lawfully revoke the Orders solely
due to a domestic interested party’s
untimely filing of a notice of intent to
participate.8 The CIT elaborated that
section 751(c) of the Act allows for
Commerce to revoke an order only if no
domestic interested party provides an
‘‘answer to a solicitation for the
substantive content that {section
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27423 (May 10,
2012) (collectively, Orders).
2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 87
FR 59779 (October 3, 2022).
3 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’)
Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders on
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from China
and Taiwan: Rejection of Notice of Intent to
Participate,’’ dated October 28, 2022; see also
Memorandum, ‘‘Rejection of Certain Documents in
ACCESS,’’ dated November 9, 2022.
4 See Archroma’s Letters, ‘‘Request for
Reconsideration,’’ dated November 11, 2022; and
‘‘Supplemental Request for Reconsideration,’’ dated
November 17, 2022.
5 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Rejection of Request
for Reconsideration,’’ dated November 30, 2022.
6 See Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from
People’s Republic of China and Taiwan: Final
Results of Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Order,
87 FR 80162 (December 29, 2022) (Final Results).
7 Id.
8 See Archroma U.S., Inc., v. United States et al.,
Court No. 22–00354, Slip Op. 24–61 (CIT May 28,
2024).
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2024 / Notices
751(c)(2) of the Act} instructs the
agency to seek.’’ 9 According to the CIT,
because Archroma’s timely substantive
response satisfied the request for
substantive material pursuant to section
751(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the agency was
obligated to conduct the sunset reviews
of the Orders.10 Additionally, the CIT
held that Commerce’s regulations at 19
CFR 351.218(d)(1), which sets the 15day procedural deadline for a notice of
intent to participate, violates section
751(c)(2)–(3) of the Act, because it
removes from domestic interested
parties the statutory right to submit
substantive information in a sunset
review if, as here, a timely notice of
intent is not filed.11 Consequently, the
CIT issued a declaratory judgment and
injunction, ordering Commerce to
accept Archroma’s substantive response,
and conduct full sunset reviews of the
Orders.
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(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce
must publish a notice of court decision
that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with an agency
determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s
May 28, 2024, judgment constitutes a
final decision that is not in harmony
with Commerce’s Final Results. Thus,
this notice is published in fulfillment of
the publication requirements of Timken.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Reinstatement of Antidumping Duty
Orders
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains
enjoined by CIT order from liquidating
entries of OBAs China and Taiwan that
are or were entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after
November 27, 2022. 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 U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties on unliquidated
entries of OBAs China and Taiwan that
are or were entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after
November 27, 2022, as appropriate.
Cash Deposit Rates
At this time, Commerce remains
enjoined by CIT order to require cash
deposits at a rate of zero percent for
entries of OBAs from China and Taiwan
that are or were entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse for consumption, on or
after November 27, 2022. Upon a final
and conclusive court decision in the
litigation, Commerce intends to issue
revised cash deposit instructions to CBP
as appropriate.
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: June 20, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive
functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Pursuant to the CIT’s May 28, 2024,
final decision, Commerce is reinstating
the Orders.
[FR Doc. 2024–14029 Filed 6–25–24; 8:45 am]
Reconduction of Sunset Reviews
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Through this notice, we are notifying
the public that Commerce is
reconducting its sunset reviews of the
Orders in accordance with the CIT’s
judgment. Commerce will begin
reconducting the sunset review on July
1, 2024, to coordinate with the U.S.
International Trade Commission’s
sunset reviews, pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act.
International Trade Administration
9 Id.
at 16.
at 18.
11 Id. at 18.
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).
10 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Jun 25, 2024
Jkt 262001
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
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 Grupo Aceroro
S.A. de C.V. with the United States
Section of the USMCA Secretariat on
June 6, 2024, pursuant to USMCA
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53393
Article 10.12. Panel Review was
requested of the U.S. Department of
Commerce’s Final Results in the 2021–
2022 Administrative Review of
Antidumping Duty Order on Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vidya Desai, United States Secretary,
USMCA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230, 202–482–5438.
The final
determination was published in the
Federal Register on May 10, 2024 (89
FR 40467). The USMCA Secretariat has
assigned case number USA–MEX–2024–
10.12–03 to this request.
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 July 8, 2024);
(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 July 22, 2024);
(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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53392-53393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14029]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-848, A-570-972]
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan and the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the
Results of Antidumping Sunset Reviews, Reinstatement of Antidumping
Duty Orders, and Reconduction of Sunset Reviews
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 28, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)
issued its final judgment in Archroma U.S., Inc., v. United States et
al., Court No. 22-00354, finding that the regulatory provision upon
which the U.S. Department of Commerce relied to revoke the antidumping
duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan
and the People's Republic of China (China) violates section 751(c) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and ordering the U.S.
Department of Commerce (Commerce) to: accept the domestic interested
party Archroma U.S., Inc.'s (Archroma) substantive response; and
conduct a full sunset reviews of these orders. Commerce is notifying
the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with
Commerce's final results of the sunset reviews, and that Commerce
intends to: reinstate the antidumping duty orders on OBAs from Taiwan
and China; accept Archroma's substantive response; and conduct full
sunset reviews of these orders under section 751(c)(1) and (d)(2) of
the Act. Commerce will begin reconducting the sunset reviews on July 1,
2024.
DATES: Applicable June 7, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Weiner, AD/CVD Operations,
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3902.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 10, 2012, Commerce published the antidumping duty orders on
OBAs from Taiwan and China in the Federal Register.\1\ On October 3,
2022, Commerce initiated the sunset reviews of the Orders.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from
Taiwan: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27419 (May 10, 2012); and Certain
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of
China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27423 (May 10, 2012)
(collectively, Orders).
\2\ See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 87 FR 59779
(October 3, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d), the publication of a sunset review
notice of initiation in the Federal Register establishes two deadlines:
a 15-day notice of intent to participate; and a 30-day submission of
``complete substantive responses.'' On October 24, 2022, six days after
the 15-day deadline (i.e., October 18, 2022), Archroma submitted its
notice of intent to participate in the sunset reviews of the Orders;
Archroma submitted its substantive response by the requisite deadline.
Consequently, Commerce rejected Archroma's notice of intent to
participate because it was untimely, and consequently rejected
Archroma's substantive response as unsolicited due to Archroma's
failure to submit a timely notice of intent to participate.\3\ Despite
Archroma's subsequent requests for reconsideration,\4\ Commerce made no
change to its decisions in this regard.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Five-Year (``Sunset'') Review of
the Antidumping Duty Orders on Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents
from China and Taiwan: Rejection of Notice of Intent to
Participate,'' dated October 28, 2022; see also Memorandum,
``Rejection of Certain Documents in ACCESS,'' dated November 9,
2022.
\4\ See Archroma's Letters, ``Request for Reconsideration,''
dated November 11, 2022; and ``Supplemental Request for
Reconsideration,'' dated November 17, 2022.
\5\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Rejection of Request for
Reconsideration,'' dated November 30, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 29, 2022, Commerce issued its final results in the
sunset reviews of the Orders.\6\ Because no domestic interested party
responded to Commerce's notice of initiation by the applicable
deadline, Commerce revoked the Orders consistent with section
751(c)(3)(A) of the Act.\7\ Archroma subsequently challenged Commerce's
Final Results at the CIT on that same day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from People's
Republic of China and Taiwan: Final Results of Sunset Reviews and
Revocation of Order, 87 FR 80162 (December 29, 2022) (Final
Results).
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT held that Commerce could not lawfully revoke the Orders
solely due to a domestic interested party's untimely filing of a notice
of intent to participate.\8\ The CIT elaborated that section 751(c) of
the Act allows for Commerce to revoke an order only if no domestic
interested party provides an ``answer to a solicitation for the
substantive content that {section
[[Page 53393]]
751(c)(2) of the Act{time} instructs the agency to seek.'' \9\
According to the CIT, because Archroma's timely substantive response
satisfied the request for substantive material pursuant to section
751(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the agency was obligated to conduct the sunset
reviews of the Orders.\10\ Additionally, the CIT held that Commerce's
regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1), which sets the 15-day procedural
deadline for a notice of intent to participate, violates section
751(c)(2)-(3) of the Act, because it removes from domestic interested
parties the statutory right to submit substantive information in a
sunset review if, as here, a timely notice of intent is not filed.\11\
Consequently, the CIT issued a declaratory judgment and injunction,
ordering Commerce to accept Archroma's substantive response, and
conduct full sunset reviews of the Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Archroma U.S., Inc., v. United States et al., Court No.
22-00354, Slip Op. 24-61 (CIT May 28, 2024).
\9\ Id. at 16.
\10\ Id. at 18.
\11\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must
publish a notice of court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with an
agency determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's May 28, 2024, judgment
constitutes a final decision 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinstatement of Antidumping Duty Orders
Pursuant to the CIT's May 28, 2024, final decision, Commerce is
reinstating the Orders.
Reconduction of Sunset Reviews
Through this notice, we are notifying the public that Commerce is
reconducting its sunset reviews of the Orders in accordance with the
CIT's judgment. Commerce will begin reconducting the sunset review on
July 1, 2024, to coordinate with the U.S. International Trade
Commission's sunset reviews, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries of OBAs China and Taiwan that are or were entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after November 27,
2022. 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 U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on
unliquidated entries of OBAs China and Taiwan that are or were entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after November 27,
2022, as appropriate.
Cash Deposit Rates
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order to require
cash deposits at a rate of zero percent for entries of OBAs from China
and Taiwan that are or were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after November 27, 2022. Upon a final and conclusive
court decision in the litigation, Commerce intends to issue revised
cash deposit instructions to CBP as appropriate.
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: June 20, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-14029 Filed 6-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
