82 FR 46758 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination in Less Than Fair Value Investigation, Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Court Decision, Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in Part, and Discontinuation of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 193 (October 6, 2017)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 193 (October 6, 2017)
| Page Range | 46758-46760 | |
| FR Document | 2017-21582 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 46758-46760] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-21582] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-977] High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination in Less Than Fair Value Investigation, Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Court Decision, Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in Part, and Discontinuation of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 17, 2017, the Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's (Department) remand redetermination pertaining to the final determination in the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation of high pressure steel cylinders from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Because of the CIT's final decision, we are notifying the public that this court decision is not in harmony with the Department's final determination in the LTFV investigation, and we are also amending our final determination, revoking this antidumping duty order, in part, and discontinuing the fifth administrative review. DATES: Applicable August 27, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annathea Cook, AD/CVD Operations Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0250. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As noted above, on August 17, 2017, the CIT sustained the Department's Third Remand Redetermination pertaining to the final determination in the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation of high pressure steel cylinders from the People's Republic of China (PRC).\1\ In the underlying LTFV investigation, the Department found that, pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), ``there was a pattern of prices that differ significantly by time period'' for respondent Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. (BTIC), and that ``application of the standard A-to-A {(average-to- average){time} methodology would result in the masking of dumping that is unmasked by application of the alternative A-to-T {(average-to- transaction){time} methodology when calculating BTIC's weighted- average dumping margin.'' \2\ In the Final Determination, the Department calculated BTIC's estimated weighted-average dumping margin using the A-to-T comparison method, applied to all of BTIC's export sales.\3\ In Beijing Tianhai I,\4\ the CIT held that the Department's explanation of its ``meaningful difference'' analysis in the Final Determination was insufficient to satisfy the explanation requirement under section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, and also found that ``the explanation ignores the potential use of the {transaction-to- transaction{time} methodology entirely.'' \5\ With respect to BTIC's challenge to the Department's application of the A-to-T methodology to all of BTIC's export sales as being inconsistent with 19 CFR 351.414(f), a regulation BTIC alleged had been inappropriately withdrawn, the CIT also held that ``even if the Department's withdrawal of 19 CFR 351.414(f) (2007) was in violation of the APA's {(Administrative Procedure Act){time} notice and comment requirement, that error was harmless as it relates to the plaintiff in this case,'' and also that ``the Department need not adhere to the requirements of 19 CFR 351.414(f) (2007).'' \6\ The Court deferred resolution of several other issues pertaining to the Department's targeted dumping analysis and application of the A-to-T comparison method when determining BTIC's estimated weighted-average dumping margin in Beijing Tianhai I.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 17-105 (CIT August 17, 2017) (Beijing Tianhai IV); see also Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 12-00203, Slip Op. 17- 79 (CIT July 5, 2017), dated August 3, 2017 (Third Remand Redetermination); High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 77 FR 26739 (May 7, 2012) (Final Determination), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; and High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 37377 (June 21, 2012) (Order). \2\ See Final Determination, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23-24. \3\ Id. at 24-26. \4\ See Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (CIT 2014) (Beijing Tianhai I). \5\ See Beijing Tianhai I, 7 F. Supp. 3d at 1331-32. \6\ Id. at 1332-37. \7\ Id. at 1337. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following the Department's First Remand Redetermination,\8\ the CIT in Beijing Tianhai II sustained the Department's Final Determination as to the other issues that BTIC challenged, for which the CIT had deferred consideration in Beijing Tianhai I.\9\ However, with regard to the Department's ``meaningful difference'' analysis and the further analysis the Department provided in the First Remand Redetermination on that issue, the CIT held that ``the Department has chosen a narrative rather than an explanation,'' and ``failed to satisfy the requirements of the statute.'' \10\ The Court again remanded that issue to the Department.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 12-00203, Slip Op. 14-104 (CIT September 9, 2014), dated January 7, 2015 (First Remand Redetermination). \9\ See Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1342, 1352-56 (CIT 2015) (Beijing Tianhai II) \10\ Id. at 1351. \11\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 46759]] The Department filed its Second Remand Redetermination with the Court on February 8, 2016,\12\ in which the Department provided further explanation as to its ``meaningful difference'' analysis under section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. However, while the Department's Second Remand Redetermination was pending before the CIT, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that the Department's 2008 withdrawal of the Limiting Regulation did not comply with the notice-and-comment provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that not following this provision could not be excused as harmless error.\13\ BTIC subsequently moved in the Beijing Tianhai CIT proceeding for the CIT to reconsider its prior holding in Beijing Tianhai I on the status of the withdrawn regulation in this case. In Beijing Tianhai III, based on Mid Continent Nail, the CIT held that the Limiting Regulation (i.e., 19 CFR 351.414(f)(2) (2007)) was in effect at the time the Department issued the final determination in the original investigation.\14\ The Limiting Regulation provided, in pertinent part: ``Where the criteria for identifying targeted dumping . . . are satisfied, the {Department{time} normally will limit the application of the average-to-transaction {(A-to-T){time} method to those sales that constitute targeted dumping under {19 CFR 351.414(f)(1)(i){time} .'' \15\ On remand, the Department was ordered by the CIT to ``reconsider: (1) Its determination that {section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act{time} may be satisfied by applying a `meaningful difference' analysis that relies on 100 percent of BTIC's U.S. sales; and (2) should it continue to determine that using the {A- to-T{time} method is appropriate, the scope of BTIC's U.S. sales to which the {A-to-T{time} method applies, and revise its dumping margin calculations as may be appropriate.'' \16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 12- 00203, Slip Op. 15-114 (CIT October 14, 2015), dated February 8, 2016 (Second Remand Redetermination). \13\ See Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 846 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Mid Continent Nail). \14\ See Beijing Tianhai III at 17-18. \15\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27416 (1997). \16\ See Beijing Tianhai III at 17-18. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In accordance with the Court's instructions in Beijing Tianhai III and in light of the CIT's holding that the Limiting Regulation applied in this investigation, the Department issued the Third Remand Redetermination, which it filed with the CIT on August 4, 2017. In the Third Remand Redetermination, we reconsidered our meaningful difference analysis under section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, as that analysis was explained in the Second Remand Redetermination.\17\ As part of reconsidering our meaningful difference analysis, we recalculated BTIC's A-to-T margin in a manner consistent with the Limiting Regulation by applying the A-to-T comparison methodology only to BTIC's targeted sales (and applying the A-to-A methodology to all other transactions), which resulted in a calculated margin of zero.\18\ BTIC's calculated margin using the A-to-A methodology for all transactions was also zero.\19\ In applying section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we found that there was no meaningful difference in BTIC's antidumping margins using the two aforementioned comparison methodologies.\20\ Consequently, in the Third Remand Redetermination, we explained that ``the A-to-A method can account for BTIC's prices which differ significantly'' and ``determined that BTIC's weighted- average dumping margin is now zero.'' \21\ The Department also explained that ``as no other aspect of our Final Determination is being challenged, we have not made changes to the margins for any other entity.'' \22\ The CIT sustained the Third Remand Redetermination in Beijing Tianhai IV on August 17, 2017.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ See Third Remand Redetermination at 6 & n. 28. \18\ Id. at 6-8. \19\ Id. at 7. \20\ Id. \21\ Id. at 7-8. \22\ Id. at 7. \23\ See Beijing Tianhai IV at 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,\24\ as clarified in Diamond Sawblades,\25\ the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 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 17, 2017, final judgment sustaining the Third Remand Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements in Timken. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). \25\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amended Final Determination Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the Final Determination with respect to BTIC: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Estimated weighted- Exporter Producer average dumping margin (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Beijing Tianhai 0.00 Ltd. Industry Co., Ltd. Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Tianjin Tianhai 0.00 Ltd. High Pressure Container Co., Ltd. Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Langfang Tianhai 0.00 Ltd. High Pressure Container Co., Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Partial Exclusion From Antidumping Duty Order and Discontinuation of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Pursuant to section 735(a)(4) of the Act, the Department ``shall disregard any weighted average dumping margin that is de minimis as defined in section 733(b)(3) of the Act.'' \26\ Furthermore, and pursuant to section 735(c)(2) of the Act, ``the investigation shall be terminated upon publication of that negative determination'' and the Department shall ``terminate the suspension of liquidation'' and ``release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit.'' \27\ As a result of this amended final determination, in which the Department has calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent for BTIC, the Department is hereby excluding merchandise from the above three [[Page 46760]] producer/exporter chains from the antidumping duty Order: \28\ Accordingly, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to release any bonds or other security and refund cash deposits pertaining to any suspended entries from the three aforementioned producer-exporter combinations. This exclusion does not apply beyond the three producer-exporter combinations referenced above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ Section 733(b)(3) of the Act defines de minimis dumping margin as ``less than 2 percent ad valorem or the equivalent specific rate for the subject merchandise.'' \27\ See sections 735(c)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. \28\ See Third Remand Redetermination at 8. There continues to be a countervailing duty order covering BTIC's entries. This countervailing duty order is unaffected by this Timken notice and notice of amended final determination. See High Pressure Cylinders from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 37384 (June 21, 2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We note, however, that pursuant to Timken the suspension of liquidation must continue during the pendency of the appeals process. Thus, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated entries from the three aforementioned producer-exporter combinations at a cash deposit rate of 0.00 percent which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after August 27, 2017, which is ten days after the CIT's final decision, in accordance with section 516A of the Act.\29\ If the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld, the Department will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate entries subject to the three producer- exporter combination rates stated above without regard to antidumping duties. As a result of the exclusion, the Department is discontinuing the ongoing fifth administrative review covering the period June 1, 2016, through May 31, 2017, which only pertains to BTIC's entries during that period of review,\30\ and the Department will not initiate any new administrative reviews of BTIC's entries pursuant to the antidumping Order.\31\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ See Drill Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with International Trade Commission's Injury Determination, Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders Pursuant to Court Decision, and Discontinuation of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 78037, 78038 (December 29, 2014) (Drill Pipe). \30\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 35749 (August 1, 2017). \31\ See Drill Pipe, 79 FR at 78038; see also Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation, 80 FR 77316 (December 14, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lastly, we note that, at this time, the Department remains enjoined by Court order from liquidating entries that were exported by BTIC, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period December 16, 2011, through May 31, 2016. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and (e) of the Act. Dated: September 29, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2017-21582 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![46758 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices
59. Orchard View Farms, Inc., The Dalles, OR Commerce’s (Department) remand T comparison method, applied to all of
60. Pacific Coast Cherry Packers, LLC, redetermination pertaining to the final BTIC’s export sales.3 In Beijing Tianhai
Yakima, WA determination in the less than fair value I,4 the CIT held that the Department’s
61. Peshastin Hi-Up Growers, Peshastin, WA (LTFV) investigation of high pressure explanation of its ‘‘meaningful
62. Phillippi Fruit Company, Inc.,
Wenatchee, WA
steel cylinders from the People’s difference’’ analysis in the Final
63. Piepel Premium Fruit Packing LLC, East Republic of China (PRC). Because of the Determination was insufficient to satisfy
Wenatchee, WA CIT’s final decision, we are notifying the the explanation requirement under
64. Polehn Farm’s Inc., The Dalles, OR public that this court decision is not in section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, and
65. Price Cold Storage & Packing Co., Inc., harmony with the Department’s final also found that ‘‘the explanation ignores
Yakima, WA determination in the LTFV the potential use of the {transaction-to-
66. Pride Packing Company, Wapato, WA investigation, and we are also amending transaction} methodology entirely.’’ 5
67. Quincy Fresh Fruit Co., Quincy, WA our final determination, revoking this With respect to BTIC’s challenge to the
68. Rainier Fruit Company, Selah, WA antidumping duty order, in part, and Department’s application of the A-to-T
69. Roche Fruit, Ltd., Yakima, WA
70. Sage Fruit Company, L.L.C., Yakima, WA
discontinuing the fifth administrative methodology to all of BTIC’s export
71. Smith & Nelson, Inc., Tonasket, WA review. sales as being inconsistent with 19 CFR
72. Stadelman Fruit, L.L.C., Milton- DATES: Applicable August 27, 2017. 351.414(f), a regulation BTIC alleged
Freewater, OR, and Zillah, WA had been inappropriately withdrawn,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
73. Stemilt Growers, LLC, Wenatchee, WA the CIT also held that ‘‘even if the
74. Strand Apples, Inc., Cowiche, WA Annathea Cook, AD/CVD Operations
Department’s withdrawal of 19 CFR
75. Symms Fruit Ranch, Inc., Caldwell, ID Office V, Enforcement and Compliance,
351.414(f) (2007) was in violation of the
International Trade Administration,
76. The Dalles Fruit Company, LLC, APA’s {(Administrative Procedure Act)}
Dallesport, WA U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
notice and comment requirement, that
77. Underwood Fruit & Warehouse Co., Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
Bingen, WA
error was harmless as it relates to the
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0250.
78. Valicoff Fruit Co., Inc., Wapato, WA plaintiff in this case,’’ and also that ‘‘the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Department need not adhere to the
79. Valley Fruit III L.L.C., Wapato, WA
80. Washington Cherry Growers, Peshastin, Background requirements of 19 CFR 351.414(f)
WA (2007).’’ 6 The Court deferred resolution
81. Washington Fruit & Produce Co., Yakima, As noted above, on August 17, 2017, of several other issues pertaining to the
WA the CIT sustained the Department’s Department’s targeted dumping analysis
82. Western Sweet Cherry Group, LLC, Third Remand Redetermination and application of the A-to-T
Yakima, WA pertaining to the final determination in comparison method when determining
83. Western Traders LLC, E. Wenatchee, WA the less than fair value (LTFV) BTIC’s estimated weighted-average
84. Whitby Farms, Inc. dba: Farm Boy Fruit investigation of high pressure steel
Snacks LLC, Mesa, WA dumping margin in Beijing Tianhai I.7
cylinders from the People’s Republic of
85. Yakima Fresh, Yakima, WA Following the Department’s First
China (PRC).1 In the underlying LTFV
86. Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co., Yakima, Remand Redetermination,8 the CIT in
investigation, the Department found
WA Beijing Tianhai II sustained the
87. Zirkle Fruit Company, Selah, WA that, pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) Department’s Final Determination as to
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
Dated: October 2, 2017. the other issues that BTIC challenged,
(Act), ‘‘there was a pattern of prices that
Joseph E. Flynn, for which the CIT had deferred
differ significantly by time period’’ for
Director, Office of Trade and Economic
consideration in Beijing Tianhai I.9
respondent Beijing Tianhai Industry
Analysis, International Trade Administration. However, with regard to the
Co., Ltd. (BTIC), and that ‘‘application
Department’s ‘‘meaningful difference’’
[FR Doc. 2017–21557 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] of the standard A-to-A {(average-to-
analysis and the further analysis the
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P average)} methodology would result in
Department provided in the First
the masking of dumping that is
Remand Redetermination on that issue,
unmasked by application of the
the CIT held that ‘‘the Department has
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE alternative A-to-T {(average-to-
chosen a narrative rather than an
transaction)} methodology when
International Trade Administration explanation,’’ and ‘‘failed to satisfy the
calculating BTIC’s weighted-average
requirements of the statute.’’ 10 The
[A–570–977] dumping margin.’’ 2 In the Final
Court again remanded that issue to the
Determination, the Department Department.11
High Pressure Steel Cylinders From calculated BTIC’s estimated weighted-
the People’s Republic of China: Notice average dumping margin using the A-to- 3 Id. at 24–26.
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With 4 See Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States,
Final Determination in Less Than Fair 1 See Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States,
7 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (CIT 2014) (Beijing Tianhai I).
Value Investigation, Notice of Slip Op. 17–105 (CIT August 17, 2017) (Beijing 5 See Beijing Tianhai I, 7 F. Supp. 3d at 1331–
Amended Final Determination Tianhai IV); see also Final Results of 32.
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, High
Pursuant to Court Decision, Notice of Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic
6 Id. at 1332–37.
7 Id. at 1337.
Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order of China, Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United
8 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
in Part, and Discontinuation of Fifth States, Court No. 12–00203, Slip Op. 17–79 (CIT
to Court Remand, High Pressure Steel Cylinders
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Antidumping Duty Administrative July 5, 2017), dated August 3, 2017 (Third Remand
Redetermination); High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China, Beijing
Review from the People’s Republic of China: Final Tianhai Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No.
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 77 12–00203, Slip Op. 14–104 (CIT September 9,
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, FR 26739 (May 7, 2012) (Final Determination), and 2014), dated January 7, 2015 (First Remand
International Trade Administration, accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; Redetermination).
9 See Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States,
Department of Commerce. and High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s
Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 106 F. Supp. 3d 1342, 1352–56 (CIT 2015) (Beijing
SUMMARY: On August 17, 2017, the Court 37377 (June 21, 2012) (Order). Tianhai II)
of International Trade (CIT or Court) 2 See Final Determination, and accompanying 10 Id. at 1351.
sustained the Department of Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23–24. 11 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:40 Oct 05, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM 06OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_46951/page/1.svg)
![46760 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices
producer/exporter chains from the withdrawn from warehouse, for Canadian Solar Manufacturing
antidumping duty Order: 28 consumption during the period (Changshu) Inc. and its cross-owned
Accordingly, the Department will direct December 16, 2011, through May 31, affiliates (collectively, Canadian Solar)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection 2016. These entries will remain timely alleged that the Department
(CBP) to release any bonds or other enjoined pursuant to the terms of the made two ministerial errors in the Final
security and refund cash deposits injunction during the pendency of any Results.2 No other parties submitted
pertaining to any suspended entries appeals process. ministerial error allegations or
from the three aforementioned This notice is issued and published in comments on Canadian Solar’s
producer-exporter combinations. This accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and allegations.
exclusion does not apply beyond the (e) of the Act. Scope of the Order
three producer-exporter combinations Dated: September 29, 2017.
referenced above. The merchandise covered by this
Carole Showers, order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic
We note, however, that pursuant to
Timken the suspension of liquidation Executive Director, Office of Policy cells, and modules, laminates, and
performing the non-exclusive functions and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon
must continue during the pendency of
duties of the Assistant Secretary for photovoltaic cells, whether or not
the appeals process. Thus, we will Enforcement and Compliance.
instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of partially or fully assembled into other
[FR Doc. 2017–21582 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am]
all unliquidated entries from the three products, including, but not limited to,
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P modules, laminates, panels and building
aforementioned producer-exporter
combinations at a cash deposit rate of integrated materials. The merchandise
0.00 percent which are entered, or covered by this order is currently
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE classified in the Harmonized Tariff
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption after August 27, 2017, International Trade Administration Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
which is ten days after the CIT’s final under subheadings 8501.61.0000,
decision, in accordance with section [C–570–980] 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030,
516A of the Act.29 If the CIT’s ruling is and 8501.31.8000. While these HTSUS
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, subheadings are provided for
not appealed, or if appealed and upheld, Whether or Not Assembled Into
the Department will instruct CBP to convenience and customs purposes, our
Modules, From the People’s Republic written description of the scope, which
terminate the suspension of liquidation of China: Amended Final Results of
and to liquidate entries subject to the is contained in the Decision
Countervailing Duty Administrative Memorandum accompanying the Final
three producer-exporter combination Review; 2014
rates stated above without regard to Results, is dispositive.3
antidumping duties. As a result of the AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Ministerial Errors
exclusion, the Department is International Trade Administration,
Section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR
discontinuing the ongoing fifth Department of Commerce.
351.224(f) define a ‘‘ministerial error’’ as
administrative review covering the SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce an error ‘‘in addition, subtraction, or
period June 1, 2016, through May 31, (the Department) is amending the final other arithmetic function, clerical error
2017, which only pertains to BTIC’s results of the countervailing duty resulting from inaccurate copying,
entries during that period of review,30 administrative review of crystalline duplication, or the like, and any other
and the Department will not initiate any silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or similar type of unintentional error
new administrative reviews of BTIC’s not assembled into modules (solar which the Secretary considers
entries pursuant to the antidumping cells), from the People’s Republic of ministerial.’’ As discussed in the
Order.31 China (PRC) to correct ministerial Department’s Ministerial Error
Lastly, we note that, at this time, the errors. The period of review (POR) is Memorandum, the Department finds
Department remains enjoined by Court January 1, 2014, through December 31, that the errors alleged by Canadian Solar
order from liquidating entries that were 2014. constitute ministerial errors within the
exported by BTIC, and were entered, or meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).4
DATES: Applicable October 6, 2017.
28 See Third Remand Redetermination at 8. There FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Specifically, we made ministerial errors
continues to be a countervailing duty order Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, with regard to calculating the benefit
covering BTIC’s entries. This countervailing duty Office VII, Enforcement and Canadian Solar received from the
order is unaffected by this Timken notice and notice Compliance, International Trade
of amended final determination. See High Pressure People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China: Administration, U.S. Department of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, and
Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 37384 (June 21, Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty
2012). NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: Administrative Review; 2014, 82 FR 32678 (July 17,
29 See Drill Pipe from the People’s Republic of
202–482–3586. 2017) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues and
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony Decision Memorandum (Decision Memorandum).
with International Trade Commission’s Injury SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2 See Canadian Solar Letter, ‘‘Crystalline Silicon
Determination, Revocation of Antidumping and Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into
Countervailing Duty Orders Pursuant to Court Background Modules from the People’s Republic of China:
Decision, and Discontinuation of Countervailing In accordance with section 751(a)(1) Ministerial Error Comments,’’ dated July 28, 2017
Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 78037, 78038
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
(Canadian Solar Ministerial Comments).
(December 29, 2014) (Drill Pipe). of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 3 See the Decision Memorandum for a full
30 See Initiation of Antidumping and (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), on description of the scope of the order.
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR July 17, 2017, the Department published 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Administrative Review of
35749 (August 1, 2017). its final results in the countervailing the Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline
31 See Drill Pipe, 79 FR at 78038; see also Certain
duty administrative review of solar cells Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not
Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice Assembled Into Modules, from the People’s
of Court Decision Not in Harmony with the Final from the PRC.1 On July 28, 2017, Republic of China: Ministerial Error Comments
Determination and Amended Final Determination Regarding the Final Results,’’ dated concurrently
of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation, 80 FR 1 See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, with and hereby adopted by this notice (Ministerial
77316 (December 14, 2015). Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the Error Memorandum).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:40 Oct 05, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM 06OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_46951/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-10-06 00:08:34
Document Modified: 2017-10-06 00:08:34
| 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 | Applicable August 27, 2017. | |
| Contact | Annathea Cook, AD/CVD Operations Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0250. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 46758 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR