Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Amended Final Determination in Less Than Fair Value Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Court Decision; and Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, in Part

 
CONTENT
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 877-878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00050]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-863]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With Amended Final Determination in Less
Than Fair Value Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination
Pursuant to Court Decision; and Notice of Revocation of Antidumping
Duty Order, in Part
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) remand
redetermination pertaining to the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (corrosion-
resistant steel) from India. Commerce is notifying the public that the
final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's amended
final determination in the LTFV investigation of corrosion-resistant
steel from India. Pursuant to the CIT's final judgment, Uttam Galva
Steels Ltd. (Uttam Galva) is being excluded from the order.
DATES: Applicable December 28, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations,
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
    The litigation in Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States
relates to Commerce's final determination in the LTFV investigation
covering corrosion-resistant steel from India.\1\ In its Amended Final
Determination and Order, Commerce reached affirmative determinations
for mandatory respondents Uttam Galva,\2\ as well as JSW Steel Ltd. and
its wholly-owned affiliate JSW Steel Coated Products Limited
(collectively, JSW).\3\ Uttam Galva appealed the Amended Final
Determination and Order to the CIT, and on April 18, 2018, the CIT
remanded Commerce's Amended Final Determination and Order.\4\ In its
opinion, the CIT found that Commerce's duty drawback calculation was
unreasonable and not in accordance with the law and instructed Commerce
to recalculate Uttam Galva's duty drawback adjustment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Court No. 16-00162, Slip Op. 2019-168 (CIT December 18,
2019); see Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 81 FR 35329 (June
2, 2016), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's
Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Amended Final
Affirmative Antidumping Determination for India and Taiwan, and
Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 48390 (July 25, 2016) (Amended Final
Determination and Order); see also Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel
Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the
Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Notice of Correction to the
Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 58475 (August 25, 2016).
    \2\ In the underlying investigation, we found Uttam Galva Steels
Limited and its affiliated companies Uttam Value Steels Limited,
Atlantis International Services Company Ltd., Uttam Galva Steels,
Netherlands, B.V., and Uttam Galva Steels (BVI) Limited
(collectively, Uttam Galva), to comprise a single entity. See Final
Determination, 81 FR at 35330 n.13.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ See Uttam Galva Steels Ltd v. United States, 311 F. Supp. 3d
1345 (CIT 2018).
    \5\ Id., 311 F. Supp. at 1357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 16, 2018, Commerce filed Remand Results with the CIT,
recalculating Uttam Galva's duty drawback adjustment.\6\ On March 12,
2019, the CIT remanded the Remand Results to Commerce for a second
redetermination.\7\ On May 29, 2019, Commerce filed its Second Remand
Results with the CIT, wherein it revised its duty drawback calculation
for a second time.\8\ On December 18, 2019, the CIT sustained
Commerce's Second Remand Results.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See ``Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 16-
00162, Slip Op. 18-44 (CIT 2018),'' dated August 16, 2018 (Remand
Results).
    \7\ See Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp.
3d 1360 (CIT 2019).
    \8\ See ``Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Court No. 16-
00162, Slip Op. 19-34 (CIT 2019),'' dated May 29, 2019 (Second
Remand Results).
    \9\ See Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 16-
00162, Slip Op. 2019-168 (CIT December 18, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
    In its decision in Timken,\10\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\11\ the United States 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 that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce determination and
must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court
decision. The CIT's December 18, 2019 final judgment sustaining
Commerce's Second Remand Results constitutes a final decision of the
Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Amended Final
Determination and Order. This notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
    \11\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 878]]
Amended Final Determination
    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending
the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination and Order with
respect to Uttam Galva and the all-others rate. The revised weighted-
average dumping margins for Uttam Galva and all other exporters for the
period April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015, are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                    Exporter/producer                     dumping margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uttam Galva Steels Limited; Uttam Value Steels Limited;             0.00
 Atlantis International Services Company Ltd.; Uttam
 Galva Steels, Netherlands, B.V.; Uttam Galva Steels
 (BVI) Limited..........................................
All Others..............................................       \12\ 4.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Exclusion From Antidumping Duty Order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ As explained in the Second Remand Results, because Uttam
Galva's antidumping duty margin is now 0.00 percent, its rate is no
longer factored in the calculation of the all-others rate and the
rate calculated for JSW is now the all-others rate. Further,
although the dumping margin calculated for JSW and published in the
Amended Final Determination and Order continues to be 4.43 percent,
the adjustment for export subsidies results in a cash deposit rate
of 0.47 percent. See Second Remand Results at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to section 735(a)(4) of the Act, Commerce ``shall
disregard any weighted average dumping margin that is de minimis as
defined in section 733(b)(3) of the Act.'' \13\ Furthermore, section
735(c)(2) of the Act states that ``the investigation shall be
terminated upon publication of that negative determination'' and
Commerce shall ``terminate the suspension of liquidation'' and
``release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit.''
\14\ As a result of this amended final determination, in which Commerce
has calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00
percent for Uttam Galva, Commerce is hereby excluding merchandise
produced and exported by Uttam Galva from the antidumping duty
order.\15\ Accordingly, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to release any bonds or other security and refund cash
deposits pertaining to any suspended entries from Uttam Galva. This
exclusion does not apply to any other companies (except those that
comprise a single entity with Uttam Galva, which are listed in the
table above).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Section 733(b)(3) of the Act defines de minimis dumping
margin as ``less than 2 percent ad valorem or the equivalent
specific rate for the subject merchandise.''
    \14\ See sections 735(c)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act.
    \15\ See Second Remand Results at 22.
    \16\ See supra, fn. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, pursuant to Timken, the suspension of liquidation must
continue during the pendency of the appeals process. Thus, we will
instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated entries from
Uttam Galva at a cash deposit rate of 0.00 percent which are entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after December 28, 2019,
which is ten days after the CIT's final decision, in accordance with
section 516A of the Act.\17\ If the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if
appealed and upheld, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the
suspension of liquidation and to liquidate entries produced and
exported by Uttam Galva without regard to antidumping duties. As a
result of the exclusion, Commerce will not initiate any new
administrative reviews of Uttam Galva's entries pursuant to the
antidumping duty order.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ See, e.g., Drill Pipe from the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with International Trade
Commission's Injury Determination, Revocation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders Pursuant to Court Decision, and
Discontinuation of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR
78037, 78038 (December 29, 2014); High Pressure Steel Cylinders From
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With Final Determination in Less Than Fair Value
Investigation, Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to
Court Decision, Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in
Part, and Discontinuation of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 82 FR 46758, 46760 (October 6, 2017).
    \18\ See Amended Final Determination and Order. Currently there
are no ongoing administrative reviews of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries that: (1) Were produced and exported by Uttam Galva
Steels Limited, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after July 1, 2017, up to and including June 30,
2018; and (2) were produced and/or exported by Uttam Value Steels
Limited, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after July 1, 2017, up to and including June 30, 2018. These
entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction
during the pendency of any appeals process.
Notification to Interested Parties
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c)(1) and (e) of the Act.
    Dated: December 30, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-00050 Filed 1-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P