81 FR 66259 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 187 (September 27, 2016)

Page Range		66259-66259
FR Document		2016-23305

On August 26, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's (Department) final results of redetermination in which the Department determined, under protest, that Whirlpool Corporation's (Whirlpool) kitchen appliance door handles with plastic end caps (handles with end caps) are not covered by the scope of the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 66259]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23305]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-967; C-570-968]


Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of 
Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On August 26, 2016, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's 
(Department) final results of redetermination in which the Department 
determined, under protest, that Whirlpool Corporation's (Whirlpool) 
kitchen appliance door handles with plastic end caps (handles with end 
caps) are not covered by the scope of the antidumping (AD) and 
countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum extrusions from the 
People's Republic of China.

DATES: Effective: September 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone: 202-482-3965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 4, 2014, the Department issued a final scope ruling in 
which it determined that two types of kitchen appliance door handles 
imported by Whirlpool are within the scope of the Orders \1\ and did 
not meet the scope exclusion for ``finished merchandise'' or ``finished 
goods kits.'' \2\ Whirlpool challenged the Department's final scope 
ruling at the CIT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011) and Aluminum 
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty 
Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011) (the Orders).
    \2\ See ``Final Scope Ruling on Whirlpool Kitchen Appliance Door 
Handles,'' dated August 4, 2014 (Whirlpool Kitchen Appliance Door 
Handles Scope Ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 1, 2016, in Whirlpool I the Court issued an opinion and 
order sustaining the Department's findings in the original scope ruling 
that Whirlpool's kitchen appliance door handles consisting of a single 
piece of extruded aluminum are within the scope of the Orders based on 
a plain reading of the scope language.\3\ However, the Court remanded 
the Department's determination that the scope of the Orders covers 
handles consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion with plastic 
end caps fastened on with screws. The Court found that the general 
language of the scope did not support the Department's 
determination.\4\ The Court further found that, assuming arguendo that 
Whirlpool's handles with end caps were covered by the general scope 
language, the Department erred in finding that the products did not 
satisfy the ``finished merchandise'' exclusion.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, Court No. 14-
00199, Slip Op. 16-8 (Whirlpool I), at 16-17.
    \4\ Id., at 8-11.
    \5\ Id., at 11-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 18, 2016, the Department issued its Final Results of 
Redetermination, in which it found that although it respectfully 
disagreed with the Court that Whirlpool's handles with end caps were 
not covered by the general scope language, it found under protest that 
Whirlpool's handles with end caps were outside the scope of the 
Orders.\6\ As a result, the Department did not consider whether 
Whirlpool's handles with end caps were subject to the exclusion for 
``finished merchandise.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court Remand, 
Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, Court No. 14-000199, Slip Op. 16-
08 (CIT February 1, 2016) (Final Results of Redetermination).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 26, 2016, in Whirlpool II the Court sustained the 
Department's finding in the Final Results of Redetermination that 
Whirlpool's handles with plastic end caps are not covered by the scope 
of the Orders.\8\ Consistent with the decision of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) 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 (CAFC 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 scope ruling and is amending the final scope 
ruling to find that the handles with end caps imported by Whirlpool are 
not covered by the scope of the Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, Court No. 14-
00199, Slip Op. 16-81 (Whirlpool II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades, the Federal Circuit 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 August 26, 2016, 
judgment in Whirlpool II sustaining the Department's finding in the 
Final Results of Redetermination that Whirlpool's handles with end caps 
are not covered by the scope of the Orders constitutes a final decision 
of the Court that is not in harmony with the Whirlpool Kitchen 
Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling. This notice is published in 
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the 
Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of Whirlpool's 
handles with end caps at issue pending expiration of the period for 
appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the 
Whirlpool Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling, the Department 
amends its final scope ruling and finds that the scope of the Orders 
does not cover Whirlpool's handles with end caps. The Department will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit 
rate will be zero percent for Whirlpool's handles with end caps. In the 
event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the 
Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries 
of Whirlpool's handles with end caps without regard to antidumping and/
or countervailing duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such 
entries.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 15, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-23305 Filed 9-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2016 / Notices 66259

Dated: September 20, 2016. On February 1, 2016, in Whirlpool I that the handles with end caps imported
Andrew McGilvray, the Court issued an opinion and order by Whirlpool are not covered by the
Executive Secretary. sustaining the Department’s findings in scope of the Orders.
[FR Doc. 2016–23303 Filed 9–26–16; 8:45 am] the original scope ruling that
Whirlpool’s kitchen appliance door Timken Notice
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
handles consisting of a single piece of In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
extruded aluminum are within the 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE scope of the Orders based on a plain
the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant
reading of the scope language.3
International Trade Administration to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of
However, the Court remanded the
1930, as amended (the Act), the
Department’s determination that the
[A–570–967; C–570–968] scope of the Orders covers handles Department must publish a notice of a
consisting of a single piece of aluminum court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’
Aluminum Extrusions From the with a Department determination and
extrusion with plastic end caps fastened
People’s Republic of China: Notice of must suspend liquidation of entries
on with screws. The Court found that
Court Decision Not in Harmony With pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.
the general language of the scope did
Final Scope Ruling and Notice of The CIT’s August 26, 2016, judgment in
not support the Department’s
Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant Whirlpool II sustaining the Department’s
determination.4 The Court further found
to Court Decision finding in the Final Results of
that, assuming arguendo that
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Whirlpool’s handles with end caps were Redetermination that Whirlpool’s
International Trade Administration, covered by the general scope language, handles with end caps are not covered
Department of Commerce. the Department erred in finding that the by the scope of the Orders constitutes a
SUMMARY: On August 26, 2016, the products did not satisfy the ‘‘finished final decision of the Court that is not in
United States Court of International merchandise’’ exclusion.5 harmony with the Whirlpool Kitchen
Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the On April 18, 2016, the Department Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling.
Department of Commerce’s issued its Final Results of This notice is published in fulfillment
(Department) final results of Redetermination, in which it found that of the publication requirements of
redetermination in which the although it respectfully disagreed with Timken. Accordingly, the Department
Department determined, under protest, the Court that Whirlpool’s handles with will continue the suspension of
that Whirlpool Corporation’s end caps were not covered by the liquidation of Whirlpool’s handles with
(Whirlpool) kitchen appliance door general scope language, it found under end caps at issue pending expiration of
handles with plastic end caps (handles protest that Whirlpool’s handles with the period for appeal or, if appealed,
with end caps) are not covered by the end caps were outside the scope of the pending a final and conclusive court
scope of the antidumping (AD) and Orders.6 As a result, the Department did
decision.
countervailing duty (CVD) orders on not consider whether Whirlpool’s
aluminum extrusions from the People’s handles with end caps were subject to Amended Final Scope Ruling
Republic of China. the exclusion for ‘‘finished
merchandise.’’ 7 Because there is now a final court
DATES: Effective: September 5, 2016. decision with respect to the Whirlpool
On August 26, 2016, in Whirlpool II
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the Court sustained the Department’s Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope
James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, finding in the Final Results of Ruling, the Department amends its final
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, Redetermination that Whirlpool’s scope ruling and finds that the scope of
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th handles with plastic end caps are not the Orders does not cover Whirlpool’s
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., covered by the scope of the Orders.8 handles with end caps. The Department
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202– Consistent with the decision of the will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
482–3965. United States Court of Appeals for the Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in rate will be zero percent for Whirlpool’s
Background Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d handles with end caps. In the event the
337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as CIT’s ruling is not appealed, or if
On August 4, 2014, the Department clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. appealed, upheld by the Federal Circuit,
issued a final scope ruling in which it Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d the Department will instruct CBP to
determined that two types of kitchen 1374 (CAFC 2010) (Diamond liquidate entries of Whirlpool’s handles
appliance door handles imported by Sawblades), the Department is notifying
Whirlpool are within the scope of the with end caps without regard to
the public that the final judgment in this antidumping and/or countervailing
Orders 1 and did not meet the scope case is not in harmony with the
exclusion for ‘‘finished merchandise’’ or duties, and to lift suspension of
Department’s final scope ruling and is
‘‘finished goods kits.’’ 2 Whirlpool liquidation of such entries.
amending the final scope ruling to find
challenged the Department’s final scope This notice is issued and published in
ruling at the CIT. 3 See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of
Court No. 14–00199, Slip Op. 16–8 (Whirlpool I), the Act.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

1 See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s at 16–17.
4 Id., at 8–11. Dated: September 15, 2016.
Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR
5 Id., at 11–14.
30650 (May 26, 2011) and Aluminum Extrusions Paul Piquado,
6 See Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To
from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011) (the Court Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v. United States,
Orders). Court No. 14–000199, Slip Op. 16–08 (CIT February Compliance.
2 See ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on Whirlpool Kitchen 1, 2016) (Final Results of Redetermination). [FR Doc. 2016–23305 Filed 9–26–16; 8:45 am]
7 Id.
Appliance Door Handles,’’ dated August 4, 2014 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
(Whirlpool Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope 8 See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States,

Ruling). Court No. 14–00199, Slip Op. 16–81 (Whirlpool II).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Sep 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

Document Created: 2016-09-27 01:19:20
Document Modified: 2016-09-27 01:19:20

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: September 5, 2016.
Contact		James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3965.
FR Citation		81 FR 66259

81 FR 66259 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEInternational Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 187 (September 27, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration