Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Amended Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination, Amended Antidumping Duty Order; Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in Part; and Discontinuation of the 2017-18 and 2018-19 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, in Part
| Published date | 15 May 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 29399 |
| Record Number | 2020-10491 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | International Trade Administration |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29399-29401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10491]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-826]
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Turkey: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Amended Final Determination in
the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation; Notice of Amended Final
Determination, Amended Antidumping Duty Order; Notice of Revocation of
Antidumping Duty Order in Part; and Discontinuation of the 2017-18 and
2018-19 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, in Part
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)
sustained the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) third remand
redetermination pertaining to the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled
steel) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). Commerce is notifying the
public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's
Amended Final Determination in the LTFV investigation of hot-rolled
steel from Turkey. Pursuant to the CIT's final judgment, Commerce is
amending the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for
Ere[gbreve]li Demir ve [Ccedil]elik Fabrikalari T.A.[Scedil]. and
Iskenderun Demir Ve Celik (collectively, Erdemir) and
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu Metalurji A.S. and [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu Dis
Ticaret A.S. (collectively, [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu), and excluding
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu from the Order. Further, Commerce is
discontinuing, in part, the 2017-18 and 2018-19 administrative reviews
with respect to [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu.
DATES: Applicable April 23, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Page, 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) 482-1398.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 12, 2016, Commerce published its Final Determination in
the LTFV investigation of hot-rolled steel from Turkey.\1\
Subsequently, on October 3, 2016, Commerce published its Amended Final
Determination and Order.\2\ As reflected in Commerce's Amended Final
Determination, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping
margins of 6.77 percent for [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu, 4.15 percent for
Erdemir, and 6.41 percent for all other producers and exporters of
subject merchandise.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic
of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81
FR 53428 (August 12, 2016) (Final Determination), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
\2\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia,
Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic
of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Amended Final Affirmative
Antidumping Determinations for Australia, the Republic of Korea, and
the Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 67962
(October 3, 2016) (Amended Final Determination and Order).
\3\ Id., 81 FR at 67965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu and Erdemir appealed Commerce's Final
Determination, as amended by the Amended Final Determination, to the
CIT. On March 22, 2018, the CIT remanded the Amended Final
Determination for Commerce to explain or reconsider: (1) Its treatment
of Erdemir's home market date of sale; (2) [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's
request for a duty drawback adjustment; and (3) Commerce's rejection of
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's corrections to international ocean freight
expenses presented at verification.\4\ On July 20, 2018, Commerce
issued its first results of redetermination, in which it determined to:
(1) Use the ``click date'' of the pro-forma invoice as the date of sale
for Erdemir's home market sales; (2) grant [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's
request for a duty drawback adjustment; and (3) continue to reject
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's corrections to its reported international
ocean freight expenses, which were presented at verification.\5\ As a
result of the changes in the First Redetermination, Commerce calculated
estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 5.70 percent for
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu, 2.73 percent for Erdemir, and 5.29 percent for
all other producers and exporters of subject merchandise.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United
States, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (CIT 2018).
\5\ See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S., et al. v.
United States, Consol. Ct. No. 16-00218, Slip Op. 18-27 Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, dated July 20, 2018
(First Redetermination).
\6\ See First Redetermination at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 27, 2018, in its Second Remand Order, the CIT sustained
Commerce's revised home market date of sale for Erdemir and its
determination not to accept corrections to [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's
international ocean freight expenses that had been presented at
verification, and remanded Commerce's methodology for calculating
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's duty drawback adjustment.\7\ Specifically,
the CIT found that Commerce's calculation methodology of allocating
exempted duties over the total cost of sales for hot-rolled steel to
calculate [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's duty drawback adjustment was
inconsistent with the statute.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United
States, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (CIT 2018) (Second Remand Order).
\8\ See Second Remand Order at 16; see also Eregli Demir ve
Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 16-00218,
Slip Op. 18-180 Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Second
Court Remand, dated June 3, 2019 (Second Redetermination) at 5, 13-
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2019, Commerce issued its second results of
redetermination, in which we increased [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's U.S.
price by the full amount of duties that were drawn back or forgiven and
then added the same per-unit duty amount to normal value as a
circumstance of sale adjustment.\9\ As a result of the changes to our
duty drawback methodology in the Second Redetermination, Commerce
calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 6.27 percent
for [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu, and 5.79 percent for all other
[[Page 29400]]
producers and exporters of subject merchandise.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 16.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 29, 2019, in its Third Remand Order, the CIT ordered
Commerce to recalculate normal value without making a circumstance of
sale adjustment related to the duty drawback adjustment made to U.S.
price.\11\ On January 27, 2020, in the third results of
redetermination, Commerce did not make a circumstance of sale
adjustment to normal value to reflect the difference between the amount
of import duties reflected in [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's reported costs
of production and the amount of import duties that the Court directed
Commerce to recognize as the basis for a duty drawback adjustment to
U.S. price.\12\ In addition, Commerce corrected the unit of currency
that [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu used to report its U.S. duty drawback
amount.\13\ As a result of the changes to our duty drawback methodology
in the Third Redetermination, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-
average dumping margins of 0.00 percent for [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu,
and 2.73 percent for all other producers and exporters of subject
merchandise.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United
States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1216 (CIT 2019) (Third Remand Order).
\12\ See Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United
States Consol. Ct. No. 16-00218, Slip Op. 19-135 (CIT October 29,
2019); see also Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Third
Court Remand, dated January 27, 2020 (Third Redetermination) at 6.
\13\ See Third Redetermination at 6.
\14\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\15\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\16\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that,
pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 April 13,
2020 judgment constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in
harmony with Commerce's Amended Final Determination.\17\ Thus, this
notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of
Timken and section 516A of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\16\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
\17\ See Ere[gbreve]li Demir ve [Ccedil]elik Fabrikalari
T.A.[Scedil]. v. United States, Ct. No. 16-00218, Slip Op. 20-47
(CIT April 13, 2020).
\18\ See Second Redetermination at 16.
\19\ As explained in the Third Redetermination, because
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's estimated weighted-average dumping margin
is now 0.00 percent, its rate is no longer factored in the
calculation of the all-others rate. Accordingly, the rate calculated
for Erdemir is now the only rate that is not zero, de minimis or
based entirely on facts available, and as such Erdemir's rate is now
the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other
producers and exporters of subject merchandise. See Memorandum,
``Redetermination Pursuant to Remand of Hot-Rolled Steel Products
from the Republic of Turkey: Final Remand Calculation Memorandum for
the `All-Others' Rate,'' dated January 27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Determination
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending
its Amended Final Determination. The revised estimated weighted-average
dumping margins for the period of investigation July 1, 2014 through
June 30, 2015 are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter or producer dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu Metalurji A.S. and 0.00
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu Dis Ticaret A.S....................
Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. and Iskenderun 2.73 \18\
Demir Ve Celik.............................................
All Others.................................................. 2.73 \19\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Antidumping Duty Order
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.'' \20\ As a result of this
amended final determination, in which Commerce has calculated an
estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent for
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu, Commerce is hereby excluding merchandise
produced and exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu from the Order.\21\
This exclusion does not apply to merchandise that is not both produced
and exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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.''
\21\ See Third Redetermination at 7.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued Suspension of Entries for [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu
Pursuant to Timken, the suspension of liquidation for entries of
subject merchandise produced and exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu
will continue during the pendency of the appeals process. Thus, we will
continue to instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated
entries from [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu that are entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption after April 23, 2020 (i.e., ten days
after the CIT's final decision) at a cash deposit rate of 0.00
percent.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 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) (Drill Pipe); see also 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discontinued Administrative Reviews
As a result of [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu's exclusion from the Order,
Commerce is discontinuing the ongoing 2017-18 and 2018-19
administrative reviews, in part, with respect to
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu.\24\ Further, Commerce will not initiate a
subsequent administrative review of entries of subject merchandise both
produced and exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu pursuant to the
Order.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 83 FR 63615 (December 11, 2018); see also
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 84 FR 67712 (December 11, 2019).
\25\ See Drill Pipe, 79 FR at 78038; see also Certain Steel
Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony with the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination
of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation, 80 FR 77316 (December 14,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements for Erdemir and All Other Producers and
Exporters
Because Erdemir does not have a superseding cash deposit rate,
i.e., there have been no final results published in a subsequent
administrative review for Erdemir, Commerce will instruct CBP to
collect a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties at ad valorem
rates equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed
above for Erdemir and all other producers and exporters of the subject
merchandise, effective April 23, 2020. Entries of subject merchandise
for all-other producers and exporters include entries of subject
merchandise not both produced and exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu
(i.e., produced by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu and exported by another
party, or exported by [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu and produced by another
party).
Liquidation of Suspended Entries for [Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu
If the CIT's final judgment is not appealed, or if appealed and
upheld, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of
liquidation
[[Page 29401]]
and to liquidate entries produced and exported by
[Ccedil]olako[gbreve]lu without regard to antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c)(1) and (e), 735(d), 736(a), 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: May 11, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-10491 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
