80 FR 69638 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part; 2012-2013
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 217 (November 10, 2015)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 217 (November 10, 2015)
| Page Range | 69638-69640 | |
| FR Document | 2015-28664 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 217 (Tuesday, November 10, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 69638-69640] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-28664] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-984] Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part; 2012-2013 AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on drawn stainless steel sinks (sinks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is August 6, 2012, through December 31, 2013. On May 7, 2015, we published the preliminary results of this administrative review.\1\ We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. After reviewing the comments received, we have made no changes to the Preliminary Results. As such, we continue to find that Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dongyuan) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. We also find that Shunde Native Produce Import and Export Co., Ltd. of Guangdong (Native Produce) did not [[Page 69639]] have any reviewable entries during the POR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission in Part, and Intent to Rescind the Review in Part; 2012-2013, 80 FR 26226 (May 7, 2015) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATES: Effective date: November 10, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Meek, AD/CVD Operations, 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- 2778. Scope of the Order Drawn stainless steel sinks are sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of type of finish, gauge, or grade of sinks. The products covered by this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ``Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China'' dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided as Appendix I to this Notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs submitted by parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each program found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See sections 771(5)(B)and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because we determine that the Government of the PRC did not act to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we applied an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.\3\ For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For further information, see ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences'' in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Final Determination of No Shipments and Rescission of the Review in Part Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information and information provided by Native Produce, we determine that Native Produce did not have any reviewable entries during the POR. No evidence of shipments was placed on the record, therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the administrative review of this company. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Final Results of the Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for for 2012 and 2013, respectively, as set forth below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subsidy Subsidy rate rate Company (percent) (percent) 2013 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd 9.83 3.91 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Assessment Rates Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP fifteen days after the date of publication of these final results. The Department will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption for the periods on or after August 6, 2012 through December 3, 2012, and on or after April 10, 2013, through December 31, 2013. For entries made during the gap period \4\ (i.e, on or after December 4, 2012 through April 9, 2013), we will instruct CBP to liquidate the entries without regard to countervailing duties pursuant to section 703(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ The gap period represents the period of time after the expiration of the 120-day provisional measures period during the investigation, to the day prior to the publication in the Federal Register of the U.S. International Trade Commission's Final Determination. In this administrative review, the gap period is December 4, 2012, to April 9, 2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the rescinded company, countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period on or after August 6, 2012, through December 3, 2012, and on or after April 10, 2013, through December 31, 2013, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Cash Deposit Requirements In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for Dongyuan, as determined for 2013, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibilities concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply [[Page 69640]] with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Dated: November 3, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I--List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary A. Background B. Scope of the Order C. Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review D. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences E. Subsidy Valuation Information F. Analysis of Programs G. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether Dongyuan's Stainless Steel Supplier is an Authority Comment 2: The Department's Refusal to Meet With Counsel for Dongyuan Comment 3: The Department's Refusal to Permit the GOC to Submit Factual Information After the Preliminary Results Comment 4: Whether the Stainless Steel Coil Industry in China is Distorted by Government Presence in the Market Comment 5: Whether Working Capital Loans are a Part of the Policy Lending Program H. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2015-28664 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![69638 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices
comments from HYSCO on the which they are applied.11 Therefore, we reason of imports or sales (or the
petitioners’ ministerial error allegation.7 are amending the final determination likelihood of sales) for importation of
Based on our analysis of the with respect to HYSCO, in accordance the subject merchandise. If the ITC
allegations submitted by HYSCO and with section 735(e) of the Act and 19 determines that such injury exists, the
the petitioners, we determined that, CFR 351.224(e).12 Department will issue an antidumping
with respect to the conversion cost Amended Final Determination duty order directing CBP to assess, upon
adjustment and the toll processing cost further instruction by the Department,
As a result of correcting these antidumping duties on all imports of the
adjustment, we did not make ministerial ministerial errors, we determine that the
errors, as defined by section 735(e) of subject merchandise entered or
following weighted-average margins withdrawn from warehouse, for
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the exist for the period October 1, 2013,
Act) and 19 CFR 351.224(f).8 However, consumption on or after the effective
through September 30, 2014: date of the suspension of liquidation.
we determined that we did make
ministerial errors within the meaning of Weighted-
This amended final determination
section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR average notice is published in accordance with
351.224(f) with respect to the revisions Manufacturer/exporter dumping section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR
margin 351.224(e).
to date of sale and the application of the (percent)
G&A and financial expense ratios.9 We Dated: November 4, 2015.
revised the margin calculation for Hyundai HYSCO ................... 6.23 Paul Piquado,
HYSCO accordingly, and assigned a SeAH Steel Corporation ....... 2.53 Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
new All Others rate, as discussed All Others .............................. 4.38 Compliance.
below.10 [FR Doc. 2015–28667 Filed 11–9–15; 8:45 am]
Continuation of Suspension of BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Scope of the Investigation Liquidation
The scope of the investigation appears The following cash deposit
in Appendix I of the Final requirements will be effective upon DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Determination. publication of this notice for all
shipments of subject merchandise International Trade Administration
Ministerial Error entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the [C–570–984]
Section 735(e) of the Act, and 19 CFR
publication of this amended final
351.224(f) define a ‘‘ministerial error’’ as Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the
determination, as provided by section
an error ‘‘in addition, subtraction, or People’s Republic of China: Final
735(c)(1)(B) of the Act: (1) The cash
other arithmetic function, clerical error deposit rate for HYSCO will be the rate Results of Countervailing Duty
resulting from inaccurate copying, we determined in this amended final Administrative Review and Rescission
duplication, or the like, and any similar determination (i.e., 6.23 percent); (2) the in Part; 2012–2013
type of unintentional error which the cash deposit rate for SeAH will continue
Secretary considers ministerial.’’ to be that identified in the Final AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
We analyzed the ministerial error Determination (i.e., 2.53 percent); (3) if International Trade Administration,
allegations and determined, in the exporter is not a firm identified in Department of Commerce.
accordance with section 735(e) of the this investigation but the producer is, SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we the rate will be the rate established for (the Department) has conducted an
made ministerial errors with respect to the producer of the subject administrative review of the
the revisions to date of sale and the merchandise; and (4) the rate for all countervailing duty (CVD) order on
application of the G&A and financial other producers or exporters will be drawn stainless steel sinks (sinks) from
expense ratios. In implementing the 4.38 percent, as indicated above. These the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
date of sale methodology to use the suspension of liquidation instructions The period of review (POR) is August 6,
earlier of invoice date or shipment date, will remain in effect until further notice. 2012, through December 31, 2013. On
we inadvertently failed to update May 7, 2015, we published the
HYSCO’s reported date of sale variable U.S. International Trade Commission preliminary results of this
to account for invoice and shipment In accordance with section 735(d) of administrative review.1 We invited
date revisions. Therefore, we corrected the Act, we notified the U.S. interested parties to comment on the
this error. In addition, we revised International Trade Commission (ITC) of Preliminary Results. After reviewing the
HYSCO’s calculation of the G&A and the Final Determination and our comments received, we have made no
financial expense ratios cost of goods amended final determination. As the changes to the Preliminary Results. As
sold denominator to reflect the major Final Determination was affirmative, in such, we continue to find that
input rule and transactions disregarded accordance with section 735(b)(3) of the Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware
rule adjustments, in order to keep the Act, the ITC will determine within 45 Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dongyuan) received
calculation of the ratios on the same days of the Final Determination whether countervailable subsidies during the
basis as the cost of manufacturing to the domestic industry in the United POR. We also find that Shunde Native
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
States is materially injured, or Produce Import and Export Co., Ltd. of
7 See Letter from HYSCO, ‘‘Welded Line Pipe threatened with material injury, by Guangdong (Native Produce) did not
from Korea: Response to Petitioners’ Ministerial
Error Allegation,’’ dated October 19, 2015. 11 We note that the correction of this error did not 1 See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the
8 See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Allegations of
change HYSCO’s G&A and financial expense ratios People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Ministerial Errors in the Final Determination,’’ from those in the Final Determination. Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,
dated concurrently with this determination and 12 The weighted-average dumping margin for Rescission in Part, and Intent to Rescind the Review
hereby adopted by this notice. SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) in the Final in Part; 2012±2013, 80 FR 26226 (May 7, 2015)
9 Id.
Determination has not changed. It remains at 2.53 (Preliminary Results) and accompanying
10 Id. percent. Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Nov 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM 10NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_69855/page/1.svg)
![69640 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices
with the regulations and the terms of an MacLean-Fogg Remand Order.2 during the interim time period between
APO is a sanctionable violation. Consistent with the clarification in the the issuance of the preliminary and final
We are issuing and publishing these United States Court of Appeals for the CVD rates, both as a cash deposit rate
results in accordance with sections Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision in and, if an annual review was sought, as
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 Diamond Sawblades,3 we are amending a cap on the final rate for those
CFR 351.213. the Final Determination. particular entries.8 Thus, in MacLean-
Dated: November 3, 2015. DATES: Effective date: November 2, Fogg II, the Court held that it would
Paul Piquado, 2015. consider the reasonableness of the
preliminary rate when it reviewed the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Compliance. Department’s remand determination.9
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, In MacLean-Fogg III, the CIT
Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, considered the Department’s remand
the Issues and Decision Memorandum U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th results.10 On remand, the Department
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., did not recalculate the all-others rate,
Summary Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–
A. Background but rather, provided data indicating that
482–4793. the rate calculated for the mandatory
B. Scope of the Order
C. Partial Rescission of the Administrative SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the respondents was logically connected to
Review Final Determination, the Department the all-others companies because the
D. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and assigned a total adverse facts available mandatory respondents comprised a
Adverse Inferences (AFA) rate of 374.14 percent to the three significant portion of the PRC extruded
E. Subsidy Valuation Information non-cooperating mandatory respondents aluminum producers and exporters, and
F. Analysis of Programs and calculated company-specific net thus were representative of the PRC
G. Analysis of Comments
subsidy rates for two participating extruded aluminum industry as a
Comment 1: Whether Dongyuan’s Stainless
Steel Supplier is an Authority voluntary respondents. The Department whole.11 The CIT held that ‘‘nothing in
Comment 2: The Department’s Refusal to averaged the rates calculated for the the statute requires that the mandatory
Meet With Counsel for Dongyuan mandatory respondents and applied that respondents’ rates, even when based on
Comment 3: The Department’s Refusal to rate as the all-others rate, calculated AFA, may only be used to develop rates
Permit the GOC to Submit Factual pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the for uncooperative respondents.’’ 12
Information After the Preliminary Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act).4 However, in MacLean-Fogg III, the CIT
Results In MacLean-Fogg I, the CIT held that also concluded that the Department
Comment 4: Whether the Stainless Steel Coil the statute was ambiguous concerning failed to explain how the calculated all-
Industry in China is Distorted by
whether the Department is required to others rate was remedial and not
Government Presence in the Market
Comment 5: Whether Working Capital Loans base the all-others rate on rates punitive when it assumed use of all
are a Part of the Policy Lending Program calculated for mandatory respondents subsidy programs identified in the
H. Recommendation and therefore the Department was investigation.13 Therefore, the CIT
[FR Doc. 2015–28664 Filed 11–9–15; 8:45 am]
permitted to use the mandatory remanded again to the Department for
respondents’ rates in calculating the all- re-consideration of the issue.14
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
others rate provided it did so in a In the second results of
reasonable manner.5 Nonetheless, the redetermination pursuant to remand
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CIT remanded the all-others rate to the issued in this litigation, the Department
Department for reconsideration because designated the all-others rate as equal to
International Trade Administration the Department failed to articulate a the preliminary rate it calculated for the
connection between the mandatory mandatory respondents, i.e., 137.65
[C–570–968] percent.15 In MacLean-Fogg IV, the CIT
respondent rates, based on AFA, and the
Aluminum Extrusions From the all-others companies.6 affirmed the Department’s remand
People’s Republic of China: Amended In MacLean-Fogg II, the CIT held that results, holding that the Department’s
the Department’s preliminary all-others selection of this all-others rate was
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
rate in the Preliminary Determination 7 reasonable.16
Determination Pursuant to Court
was also subject to review under the The CIT’s holdings were appealed to
Decision the CAFC. On June 3, 2014, the CAFC
same reasonableness standard because it
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, had legal effect on the entries made held that section 351.204(d)(3) of the
International Trade Administration, Department’s regulations, which directs
Department of Commerce. Duty Determination and Notice of Amended Final the Department to exclude voluntary
SUMMARY: On October 23, 2015, the Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 respondents’ rates from its calculation
United States Court of International FR 74466 (December 14, 2012) (collectively, Final of the all-others rate, was inconsistent
Determination).
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of 2 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, Consol.
Commerce’s (the Department’s) results Court No. 11–00209, Slip Op. 15–85 (CIT August
8 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 853 F.
of redetermination pursuant to court 2015) (MacLean-Fogg Remand Order). Supp. 2d 1253, 1256 (CIT 2012) (MacLean-Fogg II).
9 Id.
remand, which recalculated the all- 3 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
10 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 853 F.
others subsidy rate in the countervailing United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades). Supp. 2d 1336, 1338 (2012) (MacLean-Fogg III).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
duty (CVD) investigation of aluminum 4 See Final Determination, 76 FR at 18523, and 11 Id.
extrusions from the People’s Republic of accompanying Issues and Decision at Comment 9. 12 Id., at 1341.
China (the PRC),1 pursuant to the CIT’s 5 See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 836 F. 13 Id., at 1342–1343.
Supp. 2d 1367, 1373–1374 (CIT 2012) (MacLean- 14 Id., at 1343.
1 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Fogg I). 15 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
6 Id., at 1376. to Court Remand, dated September 13, 2012,
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination, 76 FR 18521 (April 4, 2011) 7 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands.
and Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 16 See MacLean Fogg Co., et al. v. United States,
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 54302 885 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (CIT 2012) (MacLean Fogg IV)
Harmony With Final Affirmative Countervailing (September 7, 2010) (Preliminary Determination). at 11–12.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Nov 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM 10NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_69855/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-03-01 11:25:36
Document Modified: 2018-03-01 11:25:36
| 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 | |
| Dates | Effective date: November 10, 2015. | |
| Contact | Jennifer Meek, AD/CVD Operations, 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- 2778. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 69638 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR