80 FR 32089 - Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 108 (June 5, 2015)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 108 (June 5, 2015)
| Page Range | 32089-32090 | |
| FR Document | 2015-13828 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 32089-32090] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-13828] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-832] Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the 2009- 2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (``CIT'' or ``Court'') sustained the Final Remand Results \1\ issued by the Department of Commerce (``Department'') concerning the 2009-2010 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China.\2\ In the Final Remand Results, the Department changed the data source for inland freight and selected different financial statements for the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios, while it continued to find that the untimely and thus previously rejected factual information was irrelevant and showed no ``fraud'' on the part of the respondent, Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (``TMI''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Court Order No. 12-00006, Slip Op. 13-9 (CIT 2013), dated January 22, 2013 (``Final Remand Results''). \2\ See US Magnesium LLC v. United States, Court Order No. 12- 00006, Slip Op. 15-47 (CIT May 21, 2015) (``TMI II''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken,\3\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\4\ 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 pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China covering the period of review (``POR'') from May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''). \4\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Diamond Sawblades''). \5\ See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76945 (December 9, 2011) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Final Results''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATES: Effective Date: May 31, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eve Wang, AD/CVD Operations Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6231. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 9, 2011, the Department issued the Final Results.\6\ US Magnesium LLC (``USM'') challenged certain aspects of the Department's Final Results. On January 22, 2013, the Court remanded the Final Results to the Department: (1) To consider whether previously rejected factual information contained prima facie evidence of fraud by TMI in accordance with the factors outlined in Home Products,\7\ and (2) to explain its rationale for selecting Infobanc data based on substantial evidence on the record or, alternatively, to select a new surrogate value for truck freight.\8\ Additionally, the Department requested a voluntary remand to reconsider: (1) The selection of Hindalco Industries Limited's (``Hindalco'') financial statements for calculating surrogate financial ratios, and (2) USM's claim that the Department made errors when calculating the surrogate value for labor.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See Final Results. \7\ See Home Prods. Int'l v. United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (``Home Products''). \8\ See US Magnesium LLC v. United States, Court Order No. 12- 00006, Slip Op. 13-9 (CIT January 22, 2013) (``TMI I''). \9\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In accordance with TMI I, the Department opened the administrative record to accept the previously rejected factual information and concluded that this factual information did not demonstrate prima facie evidence of fraud by TMI.\10\ The Department also determined that the Infobanc data did not constitute the best information available to value truck freight and, instead, selected World Bank data for the Final Remand Results.\11\ Additionally, the Department selected Madras Aluminum Company's financial statements to value the surrogate financial ratios. Lastly, the Department corrected errors in its calculation of the labor rate.\12\ On May 21, 2015, the Court entered judgement sustaining the Final Remand Results entirely. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See Final Remand Results. \11\ Id. \12\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timken Notice In Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section [[Page 32090]] 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 Court's judgment in TMI II sustaining the Final Remand Results constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the Final Results with respect to the surrogate value for truck freight and financial ratios, in addition to correcting the errors in its calculation of the labor rate. The revised weighted- average dumping margin for TMI during the period May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010, is as follows: Weighted-Average Dumping Margin: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Weighted- average Exporter dumping margin (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TMI......................................................... 51.26 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported by the above listed exporter at the rate listed above. Cash Deposit Requirements Since the Final Remand Results, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for TMI.\13\ Therefore, the cash deposit rate for TMI does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ See Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 94 (January 2, 2014); Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 26541 (May 8, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 29, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015-13828 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices 32089
result in the Department’s presumption DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Enforcement and Compliance,
that reimbursement of antidumping International Trade Administration,
duties has occurred and the subsequent International Trade Administration U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
assessment of doubled antidumping [A–570–832] Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
duties. Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
Pure Magnesium From the People’s 482–6231.
Notifications to All Parties Republic of China: Notice of Court SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice also serves as a reminder Decision Not in Harmony With Final
Background
to parties subject to Administrative Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of On December 9, 2011, the Department
Protective Order (‘‘APO’’) of their issued the Final Results.6 US
Amended Final Results of the 2009–
responsibility concerning the return or Magnesium LLC (‘‘USM’’) challenged
2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative
destruction of proprietary information Review certain aspects of the Department’s
disclosed under APO in accordance Final Results. On January 22, 2013, the
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Court remanded the Final Results to the
to govern business proprietary International Trade Administration, Department: (1) To consider whether
information in this segment of the Department of Commerce. previously rejected factual information
proceeding. Timely written notification SUMMARY: On May 21, 2015, the United contained prima facie evidence of fraud
of the return or destruction of APO States Court of International Trade by TMI in accordance with the factors
materials, or conversion to judicial (‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘Court’’) sustained the Final outlined in Home Products,7 and (2) to
protective order, is hereby requested. Remand Results 1 issued by the explain its rationale for selecting
Failure to comply with the regulations Department of Commerce Infobanc data based on substantial
and terms of an APO is a violation (‘‘Department’’) concerning the 2009– evidence on the record or, alternatively,
2010 administrative review of the to select a new surrogate value for truck
which is subject to sanction.
antidumping duty order on pure freight.8 Additionally, the Department
We are issuing and publishing this magnesium from the People’s Republic requested a voluntary remand to
administrative review and notice in of China.2 In the Final Remand Results, reconsider: (1) The selection of
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and the Department changed the data source Hindalco Industries Limited’s
777(i) of the Act. for inland freight and selected different (‘‘Hindalco’’) financial statements for
Dated: May 29, 2015. financial statements for the calculation calculating surrogate financial ratios,
of the surrogate financial ratios, while it and (2) USM’s claim that the
Paul Piquado,
continued to find that the untimely and Department made errors when
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and thus previously rejected factual calculating the surrogate value for
Compliance. information was irrelevant and showed labor.9
Appendix—Issues and Decision no ‘‘fraud’’ on the part of the In accordance with TMI I, the
Memorandum respondent, Tianjin Magnesium Department opened the administrative
International Co., Ltd. (‘‘TMI’’). record to accept the previously rejected
Summary Consistent with the decision of the factual information and concluded that
Background United States Court of Appeals for the this factual information did not
Scope of the Order Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken,3 as demonstrate prima facie evidence of
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms clarified by Diamond Sawblades,4 the fraud by TMI.10 The Department also
Discussion of the Issues Department is notifying the public that determined that the Infobanc data did
Comment 1: Whether the Department the final judgment in this case is not in not constitute the best information
Properly Adjusted for VAT harmony with the Department’s final available to value truck freight and,
Comment 2: Whether the Department results of the administrative review of instead, selected World Bank data for
Properly Applied Its Differential Pricing the antidumping duty order on pure the Final Remand Results.11
Analysis magnesium from the People’s Republic
Comment 3: Whether Golden Dragon
Additionally, the Department selected
of China covering the period of review Madras Aluminum Company’s financial
Accurately Reported Its Copper (‘‘POR’’) from May 1, 2009, through
Consumption Rate statements to value the surrogate
April 30, 2010.5 financial ratios. Lastly, the Department
Comment 4: Whether Golden Dragon Is DATES: Effective Date: May 31, 2015
Entitled to a By-Product Offset corrected errors in its calculation of the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eve labor rate.12 On May 21, 2015, the Court
Comment 5: Whether the Department
Wang, AD/CVD Operations Office III, entered judgement sustaining the Final
Accurately Calculated Credit Expenses
Comment 6: Whether the Department Remand Results entirely.
1 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
Accurately Calculated the Truck to Court Remand, Court Order No. 12–00006, Slip Timken Notice
Surrogate Value Op. 13–9 (CIT 2013), dated January 22, 2013 (‘‘Final
Comment 7: Whether the Department Remand Results’’). In Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as
Accurately Calculated the Solvents 2 See US Magnesium LLC v. United States, Court clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the
Surrogate Value
Order No. 12–00006, Slip Op. 15–47 (CIT May 21, CAFC held that, pursuant to section
2015) (‘‘TMI II’’).
Recommendation 3 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6 See Final Results.
[FR Doc. 2015–13809 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’). 7 See
4 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
Home Prods. Int’l v. United States, 633 F.3d
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (‘‘Home Products’’).
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 8 See US Magnesium LLC v. United States, Court
(‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’).
5 See Pure Magnesium from the People’s Republic
Order No. 12–00006, Slip Op. 13–9 (CIT January 22,
2013) (‘‘TMI I’’).
of China: Final Results of the 2009–2010 9 Id.
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the
10 See Final Remand Results.
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76945 (December
11 Id.
9, 2011) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (‘‘Final Results’’). 12 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM 05JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32197/page/1.svg)
![32090 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices
516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Notification to Interested Parties Department preliminarily determines
amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department This notice is issued and published in that Borusan and Toscelik both made
must publish a notice of a court accordance with sections 516A(e), U.S. sales of subject merchandise below
decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. normal value. In addition, the
a Department determination and must Department preliminarily finds that
Dated: May 29, 2015. Erbosan had no shipments. The
suspend liquidation of entries pending
Paul Piquado, preliminary results are listed below in
a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The
Court’s judgment in TMI II sustaining Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and the section titled ‘‘Preliminary Results
Compliance. of Review.’’
the Final Remand Results constitutes a
[FR Doc. 2015–13828 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] DATES: Effective Date: June 5, 2015.
final decision of the Court that is not in
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred
harmony with the Department’s Final
Results. This notice is published in Baker, Deborah Scott, or Robert James at
fulfillment of the publication (202) 482–2924, (202) 482–2657, or
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (202) 482–0649, respectively; AD/CVD
requirement of Timken.
International Trade Administration Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and
Amended Final Results Compliance, International Trade
[A–489–501] Administration, U.S. Department of
Because there is now a final court
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
decision, the Department is amending Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
the Final Results with respect to the and Tube Products From Turkey:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
surrogate value for truck freight and Preliminary Results of Antidumping
financial ratios, in addition to correcting Duty Administrative Review; 2013– Scope of the Order
the errors in its calculation of the labor 2014 The merchandise subject to the order
rate. The revised weighted-average is welded pipe and tube. The welded
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
dumping margin for TMI during the International Trade Administration, pipe and tube subject to the order is
period May 1, 2009, through April 30, U.S. Department of Commerce. currently classifiable under subheading
2010, is as follows: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25,
SUMMARY: In response to a request by
interested parties,1 the Department of 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40,
WEIGHTED-AVERAGE DUMPING Commerce (the Department) is 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and
MARGIN: conducting an administrative review of 7306.30.50.90 of the Harmonized Tariff
the antidumping duty order on welded Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Weighted- carbon steel standard pipe and tube The HTSUS subheading is provided for
average convenience and customs purposes. A
Exporter dumping products (welded pipe and tube) from
margin Turkey.2 The period of review (POR) is full description of the scope of the order
(percent) May 1, 2013, to April 30, 2014. This is contained in the memorandum from
review covers the following companies: Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
TMI .............................................. 51.26 Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S., and Secretary for Antidumping and
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul
Accordingly, the Department will Ticaret A.S. (collectively ‘‘Borusan’’); Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
continue the suspension of liquidation ERBOSAN Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Enforcement and Compliance,
of the subject merchandise pending the Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan); Toscelik Profil ve ‘‘Decision Memorandum for Preliminary
expiration of the period of appeal or, if Sac Endustrisi A.S. (Toscelik) and Results of Antidumping Duty
appealed, pending a final and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. (Tosyali) Administrative Review: Welded Carbon
conclusive court decision. In the event (collectively ‘‘Toscelik’’).3 The Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products
from Turkey; 2013–2014 Administrative
the Court’s ruling is not appealed or, if
1 Wheatland Tube Company, Borusan Review’’ (Preliminary Decision
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the
Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Memorandum), which is hereby
Department will instruct U.S. Customs Borusan Istikbal Ticaret requested the instant adopted by this notice. The written
and Border Protection to assess administrative review. description of the scope of the order is
antidumping duties on unliquidated 2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
dispositive.
entries of subject merchandise exported Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR
36462 (June 27, 2014) (Initiation Notice). The Methodology
by the above listed exporter at the rate Initiation Notice inadvertently referenced the
listed above. incorrect order title. This Federal Register notice The Department has conducted this
and the decision memorandum accompanying these review in accordance with section
Cash Deposit Requirements preliminary results use the original and correct
order title, as reflected in the original 1986 order.
751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of
Since the Final Remand Results, the See Antidumping Duty Order; Welded Carbon Steel 1930, as amended (the Act). Export
Department has established a new cash Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey, 51 price is calculated in accordance with
FR 17784 (May 15, 1986). section 772 of the Act. Normal value
deposit rate for TMI.13 Therefore, the 3 In prior segments of this proceeding, we treated
cash deposit rate for TMI does not need (NV) is calculated in accordance with
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
to be updated as a result of these section 773 of the Act.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. as the same
amended final results. legal entity. See, e.g., Welded Carbon Steel For a full description of the
Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: methodology underlying our
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative conclusions, see the Preliminary
13 See Pure Magnesium From the People’s Review; 2012–2013, 79 FR 71087, 71088 (December
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 1, 2014). We preliminarily determine that there is Decision Memorandum. The
Duty Administrative Review; 2011–2012, 79 FR 94 no evidence on the record for altering such
(January 2, 2014); Pure Magnesium From the treatment of these two parties, referred to no record evidence for altering this treatment.
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of collectively as Borusan. Similarly, in prior segments Therefore, for these preliminary results, we are
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– of this proceeding we treated Toscelik and Tosyali treating Toscelik and Tosyali as the same legal
2014, 80 FR 26541 (May 8, 2015). as the same legal entity. See, e.g., id. There is also entity.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM 05JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32197/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:20:58
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:20:58
| 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 | Eve Wang, AD/CVD Operations Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6231. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 32089 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR