80_FR_13879 80 FR 13828 - Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2004-2005

80 FR 13828 - Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2004-2005

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 51 (March 17, 2015)

Page Range13828-13829
FR Document2015-06137

On February 25, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) issued final judgment in JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06-00250 (JTEKT Corp.), affirming the Department of Commerce's (the Department) final results of redetermination pursuant to remand.\1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015) 
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13828-13829]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06137]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-804]


Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan: Notice of Court 
Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2004-2005

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 25, 2015, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT or Court) issued final judgment in JTEKT Corp. v. United 
States, Consol. Court No. 06-00250 (JTEKT Corp.), affirming the 
Department of Commerce's (the Department) final results of 
redetermination pursuant to remand.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Second Remand Redetermination, Consol. Court No. 
06-250, available at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-13.pdf 
(Final Second Remand).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 final 
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan, covering the period May 1, 
2004 through April 30, 2005, and is amending the final results with 
respect to Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation and NTN Corporation.

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, Office I, Enforcement 
and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 14, 2006, the Department published AFBs 16.\2\ Nachi-
Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi), NTN Corporation (NTN), and other parties 
appealed AFBs 16 to the CIT. On December 18, 2009, the CIT remanded 
AFBs 16 for the Department to, inter alia, (1) redetermine NTN's 
freight expenses using a method that is consistent with the 
Department's treatment of the freight expense of other respondents in 
the administrative review and (2) to redetermine the application of 
facts otherwise available for information that Nachi submitted on 
physical bearing characteristics.\3\ On May 17, 2010, the Department 
filed its results of redetermination pursuant to remand in accordance 
with the CIT's order.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064 (July 14, 2006) (AFBs 16).
    \3\ See JTEKT Corporation v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d (CIT 
2009).
    \4\ See Final Results of Redetermination, JTEKT Corporation v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 06-00250 (CIT December 18, 2009), 
dated May 17, 2010 (Final First Remand), available at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/09-147.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 29, 2011, the CIT affirmed, in part, the Department's first 
remand, which resulted in a weighted-average dumping margin of 13.91 
percent for Nachi and a weighted-average dumping margin of 8.02 percent 
for NTN.\5\ The Court remanded issues regarding Nachi, NTN, and other 
respondent companies, relating to the Department's use of zeroing and 
model match methodology.\6\ On June 4, 2012, the Court stayed the 
proceedings pending the appeal of Union Steel v. United States, which 
concerned zeroing.\7\ After the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in 
Union Steel, the Court lifted the stay and ``relieve[d] Commerce of the 
directive concerning zeroing'' in JTEKT III but ``maintain[ed] the 
directive . . . as to the claim brought by NTN'' pertaining to the 
model match methodology.\8\ In Final Second Remand, the Department 
further explained its analysis of this issue but did not further 
recalculate the weighted-average dumping margins for any respondents in 
the litigation.\9\ The Court affirmed the Department's second

[[Page 13829]]

remand in its entirety on February 25, 2015, and entered judgment.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (CIT 
2011).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 
2013).
    \8\ See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06-
00250, slip op. 14-13 at 7 (CIT February 10, 2014) (JTEKT III).
    \9\ See Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, JTEKT Corporation v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 06-00250 (CIT January 29, 2010 and 
February 10, 2014), dated May 17, 2010 (Final Second Remand).
    \10\ See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06-
00250, slip op. 15-18 (CIT February 25, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (the Act), the Department must publish a 
notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Department 
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's February 25, 2015, judgment 
affirming the Final Second Remand constitutes a final decision of that 
court that is not in harmony with AFBs 16. This notice is published in 
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is 
amending AFBs 16 with respect to Nachi's and NTN's weighted-average 
dumping margins as redetermined in the Final First Remand. The revised 
weighted-average dumping margin for the period May 1, 2004, to April 
30, 2005, for Nachi is 13.91 percent. The revised weighted-average 
dumping margin for the period May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, for NTN 
is 8.02 percent.
    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. In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed, or if 
appealed and upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 
duties on appropriate entries of the subject merchandise from NTN or 
Nachi using the revised assessment rates calculated by the Department 
in the Final First Remand.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because we revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and 
parts thereof from Japan effective September 15, 2011, no cash deposits 
for estimated antidumping duties on future entries of subject 
merchandise will be required.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan and the 
United Kingdom: Final Results of Sunset Reviews and Revocation of 
Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 16771 (March 26, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    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.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-06137 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

13828 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices were revoked. The Issues and Decision Dated: March 3, 2015. Background Memorandum is a public document and Paul Piquado, On July 14, 2006, the Department is on file electronically via Enforcement Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and published AFBs 16.2 Nachi-Fujikoshi and Compliance’s Antidumping and Compliance. Corporation (Nachi), NTN Corporation Countervailing Duty Centralized [FR Doc. 2015–05815 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] (NTN), and other parties appealed AFBs Electronic Service System (ACCESS).5 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 16 to the CIT. On December 18, 2009, ACCESS is available to registered users the CIT remanded AFBs 16 for the at http://access.trade.gov and to all Department to, inter alia, (1) parties in the Central Records Unit in DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE redetermine NTN’s freight expenses Room 7046 of the main Department of using a method that is consistent with Commerce building. In addition, a International Trade Administration the Department’s treatment of the freight complete version of the Issues and expense of other respondents in the Decision Memorandum can be accessed [A–588–804] administrative review and (2) to directly on the internet at http:// redetermine the application of facts enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From otherwise available for information that Japan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Nachi submitted on physical bearing Final Results of Reviews Harmony With the Final Results of characteristics.3 On May 17, 2010, the Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and Antidumping Duty Administrative Department filed its results of 752(c)(1) and (2) of the Act, we Review and Notice of Amended Final redetermination pursuant to remand in determine that revocation of the Results of Antidumping Duty accordance with the CIT’s order.4 antidumping duty finding/orders on PC Administrative Review; 2004–2005 On July 29, 2011, the CIT affirmed, in strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Mexico, part, the Department’s first remand, Korea, and Thailand would be likely to AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, which resulted in a weighted-average International Trade Administration, dumping margin of 13.91 percent for lead to continuation or recurrence of Department of Commerce. Nachi and a weighted-average dumping dumping up to the following weighted- margin of 8.02 percent for NTN.5 The average margin percentages: SUMMARY: On February 25, 2015, the Court remanded issues regarding Nachi, United States Court of International NTN, and other respondent companies, Weighted- Trade (CIT or Court) issued final average relating to the Department’s use of Country margin judgment in JTEKT Corp. v. United zeroing and model match methodology.6 (percent) States, Consol. Court No. 06–00250 On June 4, 2012, the Court stayed the (JTEKT Corp.), affirming the Department proceedings pending the appeal of Brazil ..................................... 118.75 of Commerce’s (the Department) final Union Steel v. United States, which India ...................................... 102.07 results of redetermination pursuant to concerned zeroing.7 After the Federal Japan .................................... 13.30 remand.1 Circuit issued its opinion in Union Korea .................................... 54.19 Steel, the Court lifted the stay and Consistent with the decision of the Mexico .................................. 77.20 ‘‘relieve[d] Commerce of the directive United States Court of Appeals for the Thailand ................................ 12.91 concerning zeroing’’ in JTEKT III but Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. ‘‘maintain[ed] the directive . . . as to Notification to Interested Parties 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond the claim brought by NTN’’ pertaining Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United to the model match methodology.8 In This notice serves as the only Final Second Remand, the Department reminder to parties subject to States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), the Department further explained its analysis of this administrative protective orders (APO) issue but did not further recalculate the of their responsibility concerning the is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony weighted-average dumping margins for disposition of proprietary information any respondents in the litigation.9 The disclosed under APO in accordance with the Department’s final results of the administrative review of the Court affirmed the Department’s second with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the destruction of APO antidumping duty order on ball bearings 2 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from materials or conversion to judicial and parts thereof from Japan, covering France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United protective order is hereby requested. the period May 1, 2004 through April Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Failure to comply with the regulations 30, 2005, and is amending the final Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064 (July 14, results with respect to Nachi-Fujikoshi 2006) (AFBs 16). and terms of an APO is a violation 3 See JTEKT Corporation v. United States, 675 F. which is subject to sanction. Corporation and NTN Corporation. Supp. 2d (CIT 2009). 4 See Final Results of Redetermination, JTEKT The Department is issuing and DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2015. Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 06– publishing these final results and notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 00250 (CIT December 18, 2009), dated May 17, 2010 in accordance with sections 751(c), Thomas Schauer, Office I, Enforcement (Final First Remand), available at: http:// 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 enforcement.trade.gov/remands/09-147.pdf. and Compliance, International Trade 5 See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 780 F. Supp. CFR 351.218. Administration, U.S. Department of 2d 1357 (CIT 2011). Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 6 Id. 5 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and 7 Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and (Fed. Cir. 2013). Compliance’s AD and CVD Centralized Electronic telephone: (202) 482–0410. 8 See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’) to AD and CVD SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No. 06–00250, slip op. 14–13 at 7 (CIT February 10, Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’). 2014) (JTEKT III). The Web site location was changed from http:// 9 See Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The 1 See Final Second Remand Redetermination, JTEKT Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court Final Rule changing the references to the Consol. Court No. 06–250, available at: http:// No. 06–00250 (CIT January 29, 2010 and February Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-13.pdf (Final 10, 2014), dated May 17, 2010 (Final Second (November 20, 2014). Second Remand). Remand). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13829 remand in its entirety on February 25, Notification to Interested Parties this request on February 27, 2015.6 On 2015, and entered judgment.10 This notice is issued and published in March 3 and 4, 2015, Department accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), personnel spoke with Petitioner’s Timken Notice counsel via telephone, requesting 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at additional information and Dated: March 11, 2015. clarification.7 Petitioner filed a response 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, Ronald K. Lorentzen, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section to these requests on March 5, 2015.8 Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement In accordance with section 732(b) of 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as and Compliance. the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the amended (the Act), the Department [FR Doc. 2015–06137 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] Act’’), Petitioner alleges that must publish a notice of a court BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P silicomanganese from Australia is being, decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with or is likely to be, sold in the United a Department determination and must States at less than fair value within the suspend liquidation of entries pending DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE meaning of section 731 of the Act and a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s that such imports are materially February 25, 2015, judgment affirming International Trade Administration injuring, or threatening material injury the Final Second Remand constitutes a [A–602–808] to, an industry in the United States. final decision of that court that is not in Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) harmony with AFBs 16. This notice is Silicomanganese From Australia: of the Act, the Petition is accompanied published in fulfillment of the Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value by information reasonably available to publication requirements of Timken. Investigation Petitioner supporting its allegations. The Department finds that Petitioner Amended Final Results AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, filed the Petition on behalf of the International Trade Administration, domestic industry because Petitioner is Because there is now a final court Department of Commerce. decision, the Department is amending an interested party as defined in section DATES: Effective Date: March 17, 2015. 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department AFBs 16 with respect to Nachi’s and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: also finds that Petitioner demonstrated NTN’s weighted-average dumping Magd Zalok at (202) 482–4162 or sufficient industry support with respect margins as redetermined in the Final Thomas Martin at (202) 482–3936, to the initiation of the AD investigation First Remand. The revised weighted- Office IV, AD/CVD Operations, that Petitioner is requesting.9 average dumping margin for the period Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005, for Department of Commerce, 14th Street Period of Investigation Nachi is 13.91 percent. The revised and Constitution Avenue NW., Because the Petition was filed on weighted-average dumping margin for Washington, DC 20230. February 19, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR the period May 1, 2004, to April 30, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 351.204(b)(1) the period of investigation 2005, for NTN is 8.02 percent. (‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2014 through The Petition December 31, 2014. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation On February 19, 2015, the Department Scope of the Investigation of the subject merchandise pending the of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition The product covered by this expiration of the period of appeal or, if investigation is silicomanganese from appealed, pending a final and concerning imports of silicomanganese from Australia filed in proper form on Australia. For a full description of the conclusive court decision. In the event scope of this investigation, see ‘‘Scope behalf of Felman Production, LLC the Court’s ruling is not appealed, or if of the Investigation’’ in Appendix I of (‘‘Petitioner’’).1 Petitioner is a domestic appealed and upheld by the Federal producer of silicomanganese.2 this notice. Circuit, the Department will instruct On February 20, 2015, the Department U.S. Customs and Border Protection Comments on Scope of the Investigation requested additional information and (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on During our review of the Petition, the clarification with respect to the industry appropriate entries of the subject Department issued questions to, and support section of the Petition.3 merchandise from NTN or Nachi using received responses from, Petitioner Petitioner filed a response to this the revised assessment rates calculated pertaining to the proposed scope to request on February 23, 2015.4 On by the Department in the Final First ensure that the scope language in the February 24, 2015, the Department Remand. Petition would be an accurate reflection requested additional information and clarification on certain portions of the Cash Deposit Requirements Antidumping Duties on Imports of Silicomanganese Petition.5 Petitioner filed a response to from Australia: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated Because we revoked the antidumping February 24, 2015. 1 See Petitioner’s submission entitled ‘‘Petition 6 See Supplement to the Petition, dated February duty order on ball bearings and parts for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 27, 2015 (‘‘Second Petition Supplement’’). thereof from Japan effective September Silicomanganese from Australia,’’ dated February 7 See Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the 15, 2011, no cash deposits for estimated 19, 2015 (‘‘Petition’’). File entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 2 See Petition, at 2–3. antidumping duties on future entries of Silicomanganese from Australia: Telephone 3 See Letter from the Department to Petitioner Conference with Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated March subject merchandise will be required.11 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 3, 2015; Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the Antidumping Duties on Imports of Silicomanganese File entitled ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 10 See JTEKT Corp. v. United States, Consol. from Australia: Supplemental Question Regarding Silicomanganese from Australia: Telephone Court No. 06–00250, slip op. 15–18 (CIT February Industry Support,’’ dated February 20, 2015. Conference with Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated March 25, 2015). 4 See Industry Support Supplement to the 4, 2015. 11 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Petition, dated February 23, 2015 (‘‘First Petition 8 See Supplement to the Petition, dated March 5, Japan and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Supplement’’). 2015 (‘‘Third Petition Supplement’’). Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping 5 See Letter from the Department to Petitioner 9 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for Duty Orders, 79 FR 16771 (March 26, 2014). entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of the Petition’’ section below. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1


Document Created: 2015-12-18 12:02:06
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 12:02:06
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ContactThomas Schauer, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
FR Citation80 FR 13828 
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR