80 FR 13826 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 51 (March 17, 2015)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 51 (March 17, 2015)
| Page Range | 13826-13827 | |
| FR Document | 2015-06127 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 13826-13827] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-06127] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-924] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 27, 2015 the United States Court of International Trade (``CIT'') sustained the Department of Commerce's (``the Department'') final results of remand redetermination, pursuant to the CIT's remand order, in DuPont Teijin Films China Limited, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 15-19 (CIT February 27, 2015).\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Court No. 13-00229, dated January 9, 2015, available at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.html (``PET Film Final Remand''); see also DuPont Teijin Films China Limited, et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 13-00229, Slip Op. 15-19 (CIT 2015) (``Remand Opinion and Order''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Diamond Sawblades''), the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's PET Film Final Results \2\ and is amending the final results with respect to DuPont Teijin Film China Limited Co., Ltd. (``DuPont'') and Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. (``Wanhua'') for the period of review from November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011, 78 FR 35245 (June 12, 2013) (``PET Film Final Results''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 12, 2013, the Department published the PET Film Final Results. Interested parties DuPont, DuPont Hongji Films Foshan Co., Ltd., DuPont Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd., DuPont Teijin Films U.S. Limited Partnership, and Wanhua, appealed the PET Film Final Results to the CIT. On September 11, 2014, the CIT remanded several issues with respect to the PET Film Final Results.\3\ Specifically, the CIT held that: (1) The Department's approach of valuing DuPont's recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate (``PET'') chips factor of production, while denying its by-product offset for recyclable PET waste, was unreasonable because it resulted in double-counting, and the Department must ``reconsider its approach, and adopt a methodology that does not result in double-counting costs, insofar as reasonably avoidable;'' and (2) the Department's brokerage and handling calculation for DuPont ``incorrectly assumes that a shipment weighing less will incur lower document preparation and customs clearance costs, while a shipment weighing more will incur higher preparation costs,'' and that the brokerage and handling figure therefore required ``recalculation.'' \4\ The CIT also held that because Wanhua's separate rate was based on DuPont's rate, ``any change to DuPont's margin following remand shall be applied to Wanhua's rate as well.'' \5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (CIT 2014). \4\ Id. at 1347-51. \5\ Id. at 1359. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to the CIT's remand instructions, the Department re- examined record evidence and made the following changes. The Department revised its calculation of DuPont's margin in two ways. First, the Department reopened the record to allow DuPont an opportunity to substantiate its by-product offset, and granted that offset. Second, the Department adjusted DuPont's brokerage and handling surrogate value calculation by dividing the surrogate value for document preparation and customs clearance costs by the weight of DuPont's shipments. In addition, the Department revised its calculation of Wanhua's separate rate by adjusting it for any changes to DuPont's margin, given that its margin was solely based on DuPont's margin. Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that [[Page 13827]] is not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's February 27, 2015, judgment sustaining the PET Film Final Remand constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the PET Film Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. Since the PET Film Final Results, the Department established a new cash deposit rate for DuPont and Wanhua.\6\ Therefore, DuPont's and Wanhua's cash deposit rates do not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results. The cash deposit rates for DuPont and Wanhua will remain the rates established for the subsequent and most recent period during which each respondent was reviewed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 37715 (July 2, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the PET Film Final Results, the revised weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Weighted- average Exporter margin (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DuPont Teijin Films China Limited.......................... 4.42 Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd.................................... 4.42 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 11, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015-06127 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![13826 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices
for consumption on or after the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Interested parties DuPont, DuPont
publication date, as provided by section Hongji Films Foshan Co., Ltd., DuPont
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For International Trade Administration Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd.,
previously investigated or reviewed PRC [A–570–924] DuPont Teijin Films U.S. Limited
and non-PRC exporters not listed above Partnership, and Wanhua, appealed the
that received a separate rate in a prior Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, PET Film Final Results to the CIT. On
segment of this proceeding, the cash Sheet, and Strip From the People’s September 11, 2014, the CIT remanded
deposit rate will continue to be the Republic of China: Notice of Court several issues with respect to the PET
existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all Decision Not in Harmony With Final Film Final Results.3 Specifically, the
PRC exporters of subject merchandise Results of Administrative Review and CIT held that: (1) The Department’s
Notice of Amended Final Results of approach of valuing DuPont’s recycled
that have not been found to be entitled
Administrative Review Pursuant to Polyethylene Terephthalate (‘‘PET’’)
to a separate rate, including Henan
Court Decision chips factor of production, while
Sanli, the cash deposit rate will be that denying its by-product offset for
for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, recyclable PET waste, was unreasonable
non-PRC exporters of subject International Trade Administration, because it resulted in double-counting,
merchandise which have not received Department of Commerce. and the Department must ‘‘reconsider
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will SUMMARY: On February 27, 2015 the
its approach, and adopt a methodology
be the rate applicable to the PRC United States Court of International
that does not result in double-counting
exporter that supplied that non-PRC Trade (‘‘CIT’’) sustained the Department
costs, insofar as reasonably avoidable;’’
exporter. These cash deposit of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) final
and (2) the Department’s brokerage and
requirements, when imposed, shall results of remand redetermination,
handling calculation for DuPont
remain in effect until further notice. pursuant to the CIT’s remand order, in
‘‘incorrectly assumes that a shipment
DuPont Teijin Films China Limited, et
weighing less will incur lower
Notification to Importers al. v. United States, Slip Op. 15–19 (CIT
document preparation and customs
February 27, 2015).1
This notice serves as a final reminder clearance costs, while a shipment
Consistent with the decision of the
to importers of their responsibility weighing more will incur higher
United States Court of Appeals for the
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a preparation costs,’’ and that the
Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co.
certificate regarding the reimbursement brokerage and handling figure therefore
v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
of antidumping duties prior to required ‘‘recalculation.’’ 4 The CIT also
1990) (‘‘Timken’’), as clarified by
liquidation of the relevant entries held that because Wanhua’s separate
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
rate was based on DuPont’s rate, ‘‘any
during this POR. Failure to comply with United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
change to DuPont’s margin following
this requirement could result in the 2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the
remand shall be applied to Wanhua’s
Secretary’s presumption that Department is notifying the public that
rate as well.’’ 5
reimbursement of antidumping duties the final judgment in this case is not in
Pursuant to the CIT’s remand
occurred and the subsequent assessment harmony with the Department’s PET
instructions, the Department re-
of double antidumping duties. Film Final Results 2 and is amending the
examined record evidence and made the
final results with respect to DuPont
Administrative Protective Orders following changes. The Department
Teijin Film China Limited Co., Ltd.
revised its calculation of DuPont’s
(‘‘DuPont’’) and Tianjin Wanhua Co.,
This notice also serves as a reminder margin in two ways. First, the
Ltd. (‘‘Wanhua’’) for the period of
to parties subject to administrative Department reopened the record to
review from November 1, 2010, through
protective order (APO) of their allow DuPont an opportunity to
October 31, 2011.
responsibility concerning the substantiate its by-product offset, and
DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2015. granted that offset. Second, the
destruction of proprietary information
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department adjusted DuPont’s
disclosed under APO in accordance
Thomas Martin, Office IV, Enforcement brokerage and handling surrogate value
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
& Compliance, International Trade calculation by dividing the surrogate
written notification of the return or
Administration, U.S. Department of value for document preparation and
destruction of APO materials or Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
conversion to judicial protective order is customs clearance costs by the weight of
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; DuPont’s shipments. In addition, the
hereby requested. Failure to comply telephone: (202) 482–3936. Department revised its calculation of
with the regulations and terms of an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wanhua’s separate rate by adjusting it
APO is a sanctionable violation.
Background for any changes to DuPont’s margin,
These final results of review are given that its margin was solely based
issued and published in accordance On June 12, 2013, the Department on DuPont’s margin.
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the published the PET Film Final Results.
Timken Notice
Act.
1 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
Dated: March 10, 2015. to Court Remand, Court No. 13–00229, dated
January 9, 2015, available at: http://enforcement.
341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
Ronald K. Lorentzen, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section
trade.gov/remands/index.html (‘‘PET Film Final
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement Remand’’); see also DuPont Teijin Films China 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
and Compliance. Limited, et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. amended (‘‘Act’’), the Department must
13–00229, Slip Op. 15–19 (CIT 2015) (‘‘Remand
[FR Doc. 2015–06105 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am]
Opinion and Order’’).
publish a notice of a court decision that
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 2 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
3 See DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. v. United
Strip From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative States, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (CIT 2014).
4 Id. at 1347–51.
Review; 2010–2011, 78 FR 35245 (June 12, 2013)
(‘‘PET Film Final Results’’). 5 Id. at 1359.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_13877/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13827
is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The domestic interested parties claimed
determination and must suspend interested party status under section
liquidation of entries pending a International Trade Administration 771(9)(C), of the Act.
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s [A–351–837, A–533–828, A–588–068, A–580– The Department received complete
February 27, 2015, judgment sustaining 852, A–201–831, A–549–820] substantive responses to the Initiation
the PET Film Final Remand constitutes Notice from the domestic interested
a final decision of that court that is not Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire parties within the 30-day period
in harmony with the PET Film Final Strand From Brazil, India, Japan, the specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
Results. This notice is published in Republic of Korea, Mexico, and The Department received no substantive
fulfillment of the publication Thailand: Final Results of the responses from any respondent
requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Expedited Sunset Reviews of the interested parties. In accordance with
Antidumping Duty Finding/Orders section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19
the Department will continue the
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the
suspension of liquidation of the subject AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Department conducted expedited (120-
merchandise pending the expiration of International Trade Administration, day) sunset reviews of the antidumping
the period of appeal or, if appealed, Department of Commerce. duty finding/orders on PC strand from
pending a final and conclusive court SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and
decision. Since the PET Film Final (the Department) finds that revocation Thailand.
Results, the Department established a of the antidumping duty finding/orders
new cash deposit rate for DuPont and on prestressed concrete steel wire strand Scope of the Finding/Orders
Wanhua.6 Therefore, DuPont’s and (PC strand) from Brazil, India, Japan, the The product covered in the sunset
Wanhua’s cash deposit rates do not Republic of Korea, Mexico, and reviews of the antidumping duty orders
need to be updated as a result of these Thailand would be likely to lead to on PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea,
amended final results. The cash deposit continuation or recurrence of dumping Mexico, and Thailand is steel strand
rates for DuPont and Wanhua will as indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of produced from wire of non-stainless,
remain the rates established for the Sunset Review’’ section of this notice. non-galvanized steel, which is suitable
subsequent and most recent period DATES: Effective Date: March 17, 2015. for use in prestressed concrete (both
during which each respondent was FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: pre-tensioned and post-tensioned)
reviewed. Michael Romani or Minoo Hatten, AD/ applications. The product definition
CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement encompasses covered and uncovered
Amended Final Results strand and all types, grades, and
and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of diameters of PC strand.
Because there is now a final court The product covered in the sunset
decision with respect to the PET Film Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; review of the antidumping duty finding
Final Results, the revised weighted-
average dumping margins are as follows: telephone: (202) 482–0198 or (202) 482– on PC strand from Japan is steel wire
1690, respectively. strand, other than alloy steel, not
galvanized, which is stress-relieved and
Weighted- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
suitable for use in prestressed concrete.
average
Exporter Background The merchandise subject to the
margin (per-
cent) finding/orders is currently classifiable
On November 3, 2014, the Department
under subheadings 7312.10.3010 and
DuPont Teijin Films China Lim-
published the notice of initiation of the
7312.10.3012 of the Harmonized Tariff
ited ........................................ 4.42 sunset reviews of the antidumping duty Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
4.42 finding orders on PC strand from
1
Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd ........... Although the HTSUS subheadings are
Brazil, India, Japan, the Republic of
provided for convenience and customs
Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Thailand
This notice is issued and published in pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff purposes, the written description of the
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), merchandise under the finding/orders is
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. dispositive. A full description of the
In accordance with 19 CFR
scope of the order is contained in the
Dated: March 11, 2015. 351.218(d)(1)(i), the Department
Issues and Decision Memorandum.4
Paul Piquado, received notices of intent to participate
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
in these sunset reviews from Insteel Analysis of Comments Received
Compliance. Wire Products Company and Sumiden A complete discussion of all issues
Wire Products Corp. (collectively, the raised in these reviews are addressed in
[FR Doc. 2015–06127 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am]
domestic interested parties) within 15 the accompanying Issues and Decision
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
days after the date of publication of the Memorandum, which is hereby adopted
Initiation Notice and the effective date by this notice, including the likelihood
of the initiation of this sunset review.3 of continuation or recurrence of
1 On December 8, 1978, the Department of the
dumping in the event of revocation and
Treasury published the antidumping duty finding, the magnitude of dumping margins
which is equivalent to an antidumping duty order likely to prevail if the finding/orders
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
published after 1980, on PC strand from Japan. See
Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from 4 See memorandum to Paul Piquado entitled
Japan: Finding of Dumping, 43 FR 57599 (December ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
8, 1978). Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping
2 See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 79
Duty Finding/Orders on Prestressed Concrete Steel
6 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
FR 65186 (November 3, 2014) (Initiation Notice). Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, the Republic
Strip From the People’s Republic of China: Final 3 See Notices of Intent to Participate in Brazil, of Korea, Mexico, and Thailand,’’ dated
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand Sunset concurrently with and hereby adopted by this
Review; 2011–2012, 79 FR 37715 (July 2, 2014). Reviews (November 17, 2014). notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_13877/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-18 12:01:02
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 12:01:02
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Contact | Thomas Martin, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 13826 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR