82 FR 4846 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 10 (January 17, 2017)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 10 (January 17, 2017)
| Page Range | 4846-4848 | |
| FR Document | 2017-00882 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 4846-4848] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-00882] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-816] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained in full the Department of Commerce's (the Department) second remand results pertaining to the fifteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel flat products from the Republic of Korea covering the period of August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the administrative review, and that the Department is amending the final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union), Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO), and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu). DATES: Effective December 27, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3692. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 15, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued the Final Results.\1\ Four parties contested the Department's findings in the Final Results. Three of the four plaintiffs, Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu, are Korean producers/exporters of certain corrosion- resistant steel flat products (CORE). Union and HYSCO were mandatory respondents in the fifteenth administrative review; Dongbu was an unexamined respondent subject to the non-selected rate. The remaining plaintiff, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), was a petitioner in the fifteenth administrative review. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Fifteenth Administrative Review, 75 FR 13490 (March 22, 2010) (Final Results) and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Final Decision Memorandum). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Final Results, the Department assigned weighted-average dumping margins of 14.01 percent to Union and 3.29 percent to HYSCO.\2\ As an unexamined respondent, Dongbu received the margin of 8.65 percent that the Department assigned to all unexamined respondents, which the Department calculated as a simple average of the non-de-minimis margins of the examined respondents.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See Final Results, 75 FR at 13491. \3\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On May 25, 2012, the CIT issued its opinion in Union Steel I, which remanded various aspects of the Final Results to the Department.\4\ In particular, the Court made the following holdings: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 837 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012) (Union Steel I). (1) the Department's decision to use financial data pertaining only to the 2008 fiscal year of Union's parent company in determining Union's interest expense ratio cannot be upheld on judicial review; (2) in response to defendant's request for a voluntary remand, the court will order the Department to reconsider the ``quarterly cost methodology to apply the ``recovery-of-costs'' test to home-market sales of Union and HYSCO and the ``indexing'' methodology wherever used in the Final Results; (3) on remand, the Department must reconsider the use in the Final Results of the quarterly-cost and [[Page 4847]] indexing methodologies for various other purposes; (4) the Department must reconsider its decision to depart from its normal method for selecting comparison months of normal value sales; (5) in response to defendant's request for a voluntary remand, the court will order the Department to reconsider its decision to compare laminated CORE and non-laminated, painted CORE as ``identical'' merchandise; (6) in response to defendant's request for a voluntary remand, the court will order that Commerce reconsider the use of the zeroing methodology in the fifteenth review; (7) no relief is available on Dongbu's claim seeking an individually-determined dumping margin; and (8) in response to the defendant's request for a voluntary remand, remand is appropriate on U.S. Steel's challenge to the date of sale used for certain sales by HYSCO through a U.S. affiliate. The court determines, in addition, that any modifications to the weighted-average dumping margins of Union and HYSCO resulting from this remand shall be reflected in the rate applied to Dongbu.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Id., at 1310, 1337-38. Pursuant to Union Steel I, the Department issued the First Remand Redetermination,\6\ in which it addressed the Court's holdings and revised Union's margin from 14.01 percent to 9.85 percent and HYSCO's margin from 3.29 percent to 1.46 percent.\7\ Again, based on a simple average of the margins calculated for Union and HYSCO, the Department changed Dongbu's margin from 8.65 percent to 5.56 percent.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (Sept. 24, 2012) (First Remand Redetermination). \7\ See First Remand Redetermination at 67. \8\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following consideration of comments submitted to the CIT on the First Remand Redetermination and an oral argument, the Court issued its decision in Union Steel II, which affirmed in part, and remanded in part to the Department, various aspects of the First Remand Redetermination.\9\ In particular, the Court remanded for the Department to address: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014) (Union Steel II). (1) the decision to make a major input adjustment when calculating Union's interest expense ratio; (2) the application of the modified ``quarterly cost'' methodology wherever used in the normal value calculations for Hyundai HYSCO . . . including the difference-in- merchandise (``DIFMER'') adjustments and constructed value (``CV'') determinations; (3) the application of the modified ``quarterly cost'' methodology for all aspects of the normal value calculations for Union except the revised sales-below-cost and recovery-of-costs tests; (4) the decision to depart from the normal method for selecting a comparison month when determining antidumping margins for Union and HYSCO; and (5) the decision to depart from the normal method by selecting the date of shipment, rather than the date of invoice, as the date of sale for certain sales that HYSCO made through a U.S. affiliate, Hyundai HYSCO USA, Inc.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Id., at 1300, 1327-28. The Court also instructed the Department to ``recalculate the margin for Dongbu based on the redetermined margins for Union and HYSCO.'' \11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In response to Union Steel II, the Department issued the Second Remand Redetermination in which it reconsidered the remanded issues and revised the 9.85 percent margin it previously determined for Union to 9.83 percent.\12\ The Department revised HYSCO's margin from 1.46 percent to 5.56 percent.\13\ Once again assigning Dongbu a margin based on a simple average of the Union and HYSCO margins, the Department changed Dongbu's margin from 5.56 percent to 7.70 percent.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, at 44 (Aug. 1, 2014) (Second Remand Redetermination). \13\ Id. \14\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Union Steel III, the CIT sustained in full the Department's Second Remand Redetermination.\15\ In particular, the CIT sustained the Department's decision to depart from its 90/60-day window period regulation and to instead limit comparisons of individual U.S. sales to home market sales that occurred during the same quarter, based on the fact that the Department had relied on its quarterly cost methodology because there were significantly changing costs throughout the review period.\16\ Furthermore, the Court sustained the Department's determination to rely on invoice date instead of shipment date for determining the date of sale for HYSCO's U.S. sales in the Second Remand Redetermination, because certain evidence in HYSCO's questionnaire responses indicated that price remained subject to change after shipment.\17\ Finally, the Court sustained four other aspects of the Second Remand Redetermination, which were not challenged by any party: (1) The Department's calculation of Union Steel's interest expense ratio; (2) the Department's modification to its cost-recovery test as applied to HYSCO on remand, in which the Department discontinued relying on surrogate costs and relied instead on HYSCO's actual costs from the quarters in which there was production during the period of review; (3) the Department's decision to use unindexed quarterly cost data to calculate CV and DIFMER adjustments; and (4) the Department's use of a surrogate-based method in calculating CV and DIFMER adjustments, which was different than the method used when applying its cost-recovery test to HYSCO in the Department's First Remand Redetermination, which the Court had found objectionable in Union Steel II.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, Ct. Int'l Trade Slip Op. 16-117 (Dec. 15, 2016) (Union Steel III), at 2, 26. \16\ Id., at 16-20. \17\ Id., at 11-13. \18\ Id., at 5-11. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus, in Union Steel III, the Court affirmed the following dumping margins as calculated by the Department in the Second Remand Redetermination: 9.83 percent for Union, 5.56 percent for HYSCO, and 7.70 percent for Dongbu. Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,\19\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\20\ the Court of Appeals for 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 December 15, 2016, final judgement sustaining the Second Remand Redetermination 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 requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). \20\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margins calculated for Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu. Based on the Second Remand Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT in Union Steel III, the revised dumping margins for Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu are 9.83 percent, 5.56 percent, and 7.70 percent, respectively. In the event that the CIT's rulings are not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on [[Page 4848]] unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margins listed above. Cash Deposit Requirements The Department notified CBP to discontinue the collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after February 14, 2012, due to the revocation of the order.\21\ Therefore, no cash deposit requirements will be imposed as a result of these amended final results. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832, 16833 (March 19, 2013). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 10, 2017. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, [FR Doc. 2017-00882 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![4846 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2017 / Notices
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at with the regulations and the terms of an DATES: Effective December 27, 2016.
the PRC-wide rate. APO is a sanctionable violation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
We are issuing and publishing these Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations,
Cash Deposit Requirements
results of review in accordance with Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
The following cash deposit sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the International Trade Administration,
requirements will be effective upon Act. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
publication of the final results of this Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
Dated: January 10, 2017.
administrative review for all shipments DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3692.
of the subject merchandise entered, or Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication Compliance. Background
date, as provided for by section Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in On March 15, 2010, the Department of
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the the Issues and Decision Memorandum Commerce (the Department) issued the
exporters listed above, the cash deposit Final Results.1 Four parties contested
1. Summary
rate will be equal to the weighted- the Department’s findings in the Final
2. Background
average dumping margin established in 3. Scope of the Order Results. Three of the four plaintiffs,
the final results of this review (except, 4. Discussion of the Issues Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu, are Korean
if the rate is de minimis, then a cash a. Surrogate Value for Truck Freight producers/exporters of certain
deposit rate of zero will be established b. The Department Should Grant Yantai corrosion-resistant steel flat products
for that company); (2) for previously CMC a Separate Rate
(CORE). Union and HYSCO were
investigated or reviewed PRC and non- c. The Denial of Separate Rate Status for
Yantai CMC Is Not Supported by Record mandatory respondents in the fifteenth
PRC exporters not listed above that administrative review; Dongbu was an
currently have separate a rate, the cash Evidence
d. The Rate Assigned to Yantai CMC unexamined respondent subject to the
deposit rate will continue to be the non-selected rate. The remaining
e. The Department’s Separate Rates Test
exporter-specific rate published for the and the Rate Assigned to Yantai CMC plaintiff, United States Steel
most recently completed segment of this Are Inconsistent With the WTO Corporation (U.S. Steel), was a
proceeding where the exporter received Agreements petitioner in the fifteenth administrative
that separate rate; (3) for all PRC f. The Department Should Continue the review.
exporters of subject merchandise that NSR and Calculate a Margin for the Final In the Final Results, the Department
have not been found to be entitled to a 5. Conclusion
assigned weighted-average dumping
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will [FR Doc. 2017–00827 Filed 1–13–17; 8:45 am]
margins of 14.01 percent to Union and
be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
3.29 percent to HYSCO.2 As an
92.84 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC unexamined respondent, Dongbu
exporters of subject merchandise which received the margin of 8.65 percent that
have not received their own separate DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
the Department assigned to all
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the unexamined respondents, which the
International Trade Administration
rate applicable to the PRC exporter that Department calculated as a simple
supplied that non-PRC exporter. [A–580–816] average of the non-de-minimis margins
These deposit requirements, when of the examined respondents.3
imposed, shall remain in effect until Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat
On May 25, 2012, the CIT issued its
further notice. Products From the Republic of Korea:
opinion in Union Steel I, which
Notice of Court Decision Not in
Notifications to Importers remanded various aspects of the Final
Harmony With Final Results and Notice
This notice also serves as a final Results to the Department.4 In
of Amended Final Results
reminder to importers of their particular, the Court made the following
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, holdings:
to file a certificate regarding the International Trade Administration, (1) the Department’s decision to use financial
reimbursement of antidumping duties Department of Commerce. data pertaining only to the 2008 fiscal year
prior to liquidation of the relevant SUMMARY: The Court of International of Union’s parent company in determining
Trade (CIT or Court) sustained in full Union’s interest expense ratio cannot be
entries during this review period.
the Department of Commerce’s (the upheld on judicial review; (2) in response to
Failure to comply with this requirement defendant’s request for a voluntary remand,
could result in the Secretary’s Department) second remand results
the court will order the Department to
presumption that reimbursement of pertaining to the fifteenth reconsider the ‘‘quarterly cost methodology
antidumping duties occurred and the administrative review of the to apply the ‘‘recovery-of-costs’’ test to home-
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duty order on certain market sales of Union and HYSCO and the
antidumping duties. corrosion-resistant steel flat products ‘‘indexing’’ methodology wherever used in
from the Republic of Korea covering the the Final Results; (3) on remand, the
Notifications to Interested Parties period of August 1, 2007, through July Department must reconsider the use in the
This notice serves as the only 31, 2008. The Department is notifying Final Results of the quarterly-cost and
reminder to parties subject to the public that the final judgment in this
1 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
administrative protective order (APO) of case is not in harmony with the final
Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of
their responsibility concerning the results of the administrative review, and
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Final Results of the Fifteenth Administrative
disposition of proprietary information that the Department is amending the Review, 75 FR 13490 (March 22, 2010) (Final
disclosed under APO in accordance final results with respect to the Results) and accompanying Decision Memorandum
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely weighted-average dumping margins (Final Decision Memorandum).
2 See Final Results, 75 FR at 13491.
written notification of return or assigned to Union Steel Manufacturing 3 Id.
destruction of APO materials, or Co., Ltd. (Union), Hyundai HYSCO 4 See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 837
conversion to judicial protective order, (HYSCO), and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. F. Supp. 2d 1307 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (Union Steel
is hereby requested. Failure to comply (Dongbu). I).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM 17JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_4856/page/1.svg)
![4848 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2017 / Notices
unliquidated entries of subject Compliance, International Trade the Preliminary Determination, we did
merchandise based on the revised Administration, U.S. Department of not modify the scope language as it
dumping margins listed above. Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue appeared in the Initiation Notice.5 No
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: interested party submitted scope
Cash Deposit Requirements
(202) 482–6412, or (202) 482–4852, comments in case or rebuttal briefs.
The Department notified CBP to respectively. Therefore, the scope of this
discontinue the collection of cash investigation remains unchanged for
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
deposits on entries of the subject this final determination.6
merchandise, entered or withdrawn Background
from warehouse, on or after February Scope of the Investigation
On August 19, 2016, the Department
14, 2012, due to the revocation of the published the Preliminary The products covered by this
order.21 Therefore, no cash deposit Determination in the Federal Register. 1 investigation are OTR tires from India.
requirements will be imposed as a result In the Preliminary Determination, we For a complete description of the scope
of these amended final results. postponed the final determination until of the investigation, see Appendix I of
Notice to Interested Parties no later than 135 days after the date of this notice.
publication of the Preliminary
This notice is issued and published in Determination in accordance with Analysis of Comments Received
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. All issues raised in the case and
1930, as amended (the Act).2
Dated: January 10, 2017. A summary of the events that rebuttal briefs that were submitted by
Paul Piquado, occurred since the Department parties in this investigation are
published the Preliminary addressed in the Issues and Decision
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, Determination, as well as a full Memorandum. A list of these issues is
discussion of the issues raised by parties attached to this notice at Appendix II.
[FR Doc. 2017–00882 Filed 1–13–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P for this final determination, may be Verification
found in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.3 The Issues and Decision As provided in section 782(i) of the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Memorandum is a public document, Act, in August and September 2016, we
and is on file electronically via conducted sales and cost verifications of
International Trade Administration Enforcement and Compliance’s the questionnaire responses submitted
[A–533–869] Antidumping and Countervailing Duty by ATC and BKT. We used standard
Centralized Electronic Service System verification procedures, including an
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to examination of relevant accounting and
Tires From India: Final Negative registered users at http:// production records, as well as original
Determination of Sales at Less Than access.trade.gov, and is available to all source documents provided by both
Fair Value and Final Determination of parties in the Central Records Unit, respondents.
Critical Circumstances room B8024 of the main Department of Changes to the Dumping Margin
Commerce building. In addition, a Calculations Since the Preliminary
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
complete version of the Issues and Determination
International Trade Administration,
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
Department of Commerce.
directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov. Based on our analysis of the
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce The signed and electronic versions of comments received, pre-verification
(Department) determines that imports of the Issues and Decision Memorandum findings, and our findings at
certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires are identical in content. verification, we made certain changes to
(OTR tires) from India are not being, or the dumping margin calculations for
are not likely to be, sold in the United Scope Comments
each respondent, ATC and BKT. For a
States at less than fair value (LTFV). The In accordance with the Preliminary discussion of these changes, see the
final estimated weighted-average Determination, the Department set aside Issues and Decision Memorandum.
dumping margins of sales at LTFV are a period of time for parties to address
listed below in the section entitled scope issues in case briefs or other Use of Adverse Facts Available
‘‘Final Determination.’’ The finding for written comments on scope issues.4 In
whether critical circumstances exist for The Department has relied on partial
producers and exporters subject to the 1 See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires:
adverse facts available under sections
all-others rate is moot because the Negative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 776(a) and (b) of the Act.7 A full
antidumping duty margins for Alliance Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final discussion of our decision to rely on
Determination, 81 FR 55431 (August 19, 2016) adverse facts available is presented in
Tires Private Limited (ATC) and (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’) and accompanying
Balkrishna Industries Limited (BKT) are Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
zero. The period of investigation is 2 See Preliminary Determination, 81 FR at 55432.
5 Id.; see also Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-
January 1, 2015, through December 31, 3 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Road Tires from India and the People’s Republic of
2015. China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
DATES: Effective January 17, 2017. Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Investigations, 81 FR 7073 (February 10, 2016)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Compliance ‘‘Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
Tires from India: Issues and Decision Memorandum 6 The Department has added two additional
Astvatsatrian or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD for the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than subheadings from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Fair Value,’’ dated concurrently with this of the United States to the list included for
determination and hereby adopted by this notice convenience and customs purposes since the
21 See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). Preliminary Determination. No revisions were made
Products from Germany and the Republic of Korea: 4 See Preliminary Determination, 81 FR at 55432, to the written description of the subject
Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing and accompanying Preliminary Decision merchandise.
Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832, 16833 (March 19, 2013). Memorandum at ‘‘Scope Comments.’’ 7 See Sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM 17JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_4856/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-01-14 01:44:55
Document Modified: 2017-01-14 01:44:55
| 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 December 27, 2016. | |
| Contact | Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3692. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 4846 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR