82 FR 57709 - Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 234 (December 7, 2017)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 234 (December 7, 2017)
| Page Range | 57709-57714 | |
| FR Document | 2017-26398 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 57709-57714] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-26398] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-900] Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition (the petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether certain imports of diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond sawblades) comprised of cores and [[Page 57710]] segments produced in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and joined into finished diamond sawblades in, and exported from, Thailand are circumventing the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC. DATES: Applicable December 7, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Effective January 23, 2009, the Department published the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC.\1\ On August 9, 2017, the petitioner filed a request for a circumvention ruling, requesting that the Department issue a determination of circumvention and suspend liquidation of certain diamond sawblades exported from Thailand.\2\ Specifically, the petitioner requests a circumvention ruling for three companies, Diamond Tools Technology (Diamond Tools), Bosun Tools (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Bosun), and Kingthai Diamond Tools (Kingthai).\3\ The petitioner requests that, in the alternative, and to the extent that the Department decides it to be more appropriate, the Department address circumvention issues in a changed circumstances review.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 57145 (November 4, 2009). \2\ See the Letter from the petitioner, ``Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Request for Circumvention Ruling Pursuant to Section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 or in the Alternative a Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to Section 751(b) of the Act,'' dated August 9, 2017 (the petitioner's circumvention ruling request), as amended in ``Supplemental Submission Regarding Request for Circumvention Ruling Pursuant to Section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 or in the Alternative a Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to Section 751(b) of the Act,'' dated September 14, 2017 (supplement to the petitioner's circumvention ruling request). \3\ See Supplement to the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 10-12. \4\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 22. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On September 22, 2017, we received a letter from Bosun Tools Co., Ltd. (Bosun China) and its affiliate Bosun Tools (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Bosun Thailand) (collectively Bosun), arguing that Bosun Thailand has not engaged in the alleged activity of joining cores and segments made in the PRC and exporting them to the United States. Bosun claims that the petitioner did not support its allegation with any evidence with respect to Bosun. Bosun explains that the petitioner did not cite to record evidence supporting its allegation of limited manufacturing operations at Bosun Thailand, although the affiliation between Bosun China and Bosun Thailand is on the public record in the last completed administrative review of the order.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See Bosun's Response to DSMC's Request for Anti- Circumvention Inquiry dated September 22, 2017. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 2, 2017, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to the petitioner requesting additional information.\6\ On October 16, 2017, the petitioner submitted its response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.\7\ On October 26, 2017, Diamond Tools submitted its opposition to the petitioner's request for a circumvention ruling. In it, Diamond Tools denies that it circumvented the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC. Diamond Tools contends that the Department determined in the investigation that the country in which the cores and segments are joined is the country of origin.\8\ Diamond Tools argues that the U.S. Court of International Trade upheld the Department's decision with respect to the country of origin in the investigation.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See the Department's supplemental questionnaire to the petitioner dated October 2, 2017. \7\ See the petitioner's supplemental response dated October 16, 2017 (the petitioner's supplemental response). \8\ See Diamond Tools' letter, ``Diamond Sawblades & Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Response to Request by Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition for Anti-Circumvention Ruling'' dated October 26, 2017 at 3 (citing Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) (Final Determination--China), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memo) at Comment 4). \9\ Id. at 4 (citing Advanced Tech. & Materials Co. v. United States, No. 09-00511, slip op. 11-122, 2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 136, *1 at *9-*15 (Ct. Int'l Trade Oct. 12, 2011)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are all finished circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded below. Within the scope of the order are semi-finished diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process). Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not included within the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/ or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the order. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the order. Merchandise subject to the order is typically imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. On October 11, 2011, the Department included the 6804.21.00.00 HTSUS classification number to the customs case reference file, pursuant to a request by CBP.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 76128 (December 6, 2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Merchandise Subject to the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry This anti-circumvention inquiry covers diamond sawblades exported from Thailand to the United States that are produced by Diamond Tools from cores and segments of PRC origin. If warranted, the Department may, based [[Page 57711]] on additional evidence it receives from interested parties regarding potential anti-circumvention of the PRC Sawblades Order by other Thai companies, consider conducting additional inquiries concurrently. The petitioner requests that the Department treat diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand with cores and segments from the PRC as subject merchandise under the scope of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC. Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry Section 781(b)(1) of The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping or countervailing duty order if: (A) Merchandise imported into the United States is of the same class or kind as any merchandise produced in a foreign country that is the subject of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or finding; (B) before importation into the United States, such imported merchandise is completed or assembled in another foreign country from merchandise which is subject to the order or merchandise which is produced in the foreign country that is subject to the order; (C) the process of assembly or completion in the foreign country referred to in section (B) is minor or insignificant; (D) the value of the merchandise produced in the foreign country to which the AD or CVD order applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States; and (E) the administering authority determines that action is appropriate to prevent evasion of such order or finding. As discussed below, the petitioner provided information available to them with respect to these criteria.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See section 781(b)(1) of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Merchandise of the Same Class or Kind The petitioner claims that, in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, diamond sawblades exported from Thailand to the United States are identical to diamond sawblades exported from the PRC to the United Sates subject to the antidumping duty order. The petitioner contends that, because cores, segments, and diamond sawblades are all one class or kind of subject merchandise, a process that simply transforms one of these items to another should not serve as an avenue for PRC producers to evade the antidumping duty order.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 13-14 and Exhibit 9 for U.S. imports of diamond sawblades from the PRC and Thailand under the same HTSUS subheadings. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Completion of Merchandise in a Third Country Before Importation Into the United States The petitioner contends that, in Thailand, cores made in the PRC are being joined to segments made in the PRC and undergo a minor welding operation and minor processing before they are imported into the United States.\13\ The petitioner claims that PRC producers with facilities in Thailand for which it requests an anti-circumvention inquiry are as follows: Bosun Tools Co., Ltd., Hebei Jikai Group, and Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.\14\ The petitioner also notes that, pursuant to an investigation under the Enforce and Protect Act, CBP recently issued a Notice of Interim Measures finding a reasonable suspicion that Diamond Tools was evading the order.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 14-15 and Exhibits 10-12. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 2-6 and Exhibits 5-6. \14\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 14-15 and Exhibits 1, 4, and 5. See also supplement to the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 10 for Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. \15\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 9 and Exhibit 8 (where the petitioner cites to Memorandum from Troy P. Riley, Executive Director, Trade Remedy & Law Enf't Directorate, to Yan Li, Diamond Tools Tech., ``re: Notice of interim measures taken as to Diamond Tools Technology LLC concerning a reasonable suspicion as to evasion of the antidumping duty order on Diamond Sawblades from the People's Republic of China,'' dated June 27, 2017 (Notice of Interim Measures). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Minor or Insignificant Process The petitioner explains that, in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(C) of the Act, the Department considers whether the assembly or completion that occurs in the other foreign country is minor or insignificant. The petitioner states that, under section 781(b)(2)(A)- (E) of the Act, the Department considers five factors to determine whether the process of assembly or completion is minor or insignificant. The petitioner alleges that, based on these factors, the completion of the merchandise in Thailand is minor and insignificant.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Level of Investment in Thailand The petitioner argues that there is little evidence of any significant level of investment in Thailand for production activities beyond joining cores and segments and laser welding.\17\ In other words, according to the petitioner, diamond sawblades production facilities in Thailand are not sophisticated enough to produce segments. The petitioner explains that the production of segments is a complex process that requires detailed expertise in metallurgy and technical experience in bonding of diamond powders and metal powders in the production process and the performance of diamond sawblades for particular applications. The petitioner claims that only highly skilled technicians can perform such production processes, while laser-welding is a highly-automated process that essentially only requires a person who can operate a keyboard.\18\ The petitioner claims further that other methods of joining cores and segments, e.g., silver soldering or sintering, are even less sophisticated than laser-welding.\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 16-18 and Exhibits 8, 10, 11, and 12. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 9-10 and Exhibits 5-6. \18\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 16-17. \19\ The Department considers that this portion of the petitioner's circumvention ruling request is relevant to the consideration contained in section 781(b)(2)(C) (``the nature of the production process in the foreign country''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petitioner distinguishes the level of capital investment between segment production and laser-welding. The petitioner explains that segment production requires significant capital investment for equipment such as weighing scales, mixing equipment, granulating equipment, cold pressing equipment, sintering presses, inspecting equipment, and radius grinding equipment. The petitioner claims that, in particular, the induction and resistance presses used in segment production represent a substantial capital investment. The petitioner contends that the capital investment required for joining cores and segments is essentially limited to a piece of laser-welding equipment. The petitioner distinguishes the level of costs between segment production and joining cores and segments. According to the petitioner, the production cost for finished diamond sawblades segments may represent approximately 70 percent of the cost of producing a finished diamond sawblade, whereas joining cores and segments typically accounts for a much smaller percentage of the cost of production, often as low as 0.5 percent of the cost of a finished diamond [[Page 57712]] sawblade.\20\ The petitioner also asserts that laser welding requires a relatively small capital investment because the only piece of machinery needed to join cores and segments through laser welding is a laser welder itself.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 17. The Department considers that this portion of the petitioner's circumvention ruling request is relevant to the consideration contained in section 781(b)(1)(D) (``the value of the merchandise produced in the foreign country to which the antidumping order applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States''). \21\ See the petitioner's supplemental response at 9-10 and Exhibits 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petitioner argues that, for these reasons, the joining operations require very minimal investment.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 16-18. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 9-10 and Exhibits 5-6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Level of Research and Development The petitioner argues that, because laser-welding is a highly- automated process and other methods of joining cores and segments are less sophisticated than laser-welding, entities joining the PRC cores and segments in Thailand do not, and do not need to, invest in research and development in Thailand.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 18. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 10-12 and Exhibits 5-6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Nature of Production Process The petitioner states that there is very minimal additional processing done in Thailand to diamond sawblades produced in the PRC and exported to Thailand and later re-exported to the United States. The petitioner reiterates that joining cores and segments is a highly automated process and, compared to segment production, welding of cores and segments is a minimal step in the overall production process.\24\ As mentioned above, the petitioner explains that the production of segments is a complex process that requires detailed expertise in metallurgy and technical experience in bonding of diamond powders and metal powders in the production process and the performance of diamond sawblades for particular applications. The petitioner claims that only highly skilled technicians can perform such production processes, while laser-welding is a highly-automated process that essentially only requires a person who can operate a keyboard.\25\ The petitioner claims further that other methods of joining cores and segments, e.g., silver soldering or sintering, are even less sophisticated than laser-welding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 18. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 12-14 and Exhibits 5, 6, 11, and 12. \25\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 16-17. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Extent of Production Facilities in Thailand The petitioner explains that, before the imposition of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC in 2009, Thailand had very minimal exports of diamond sawblades to the United States. The petitioner contends that little, if any, of the increase of exports of diamond sawblades from Thailand--from $1.8 million in 2006 to $5.8 million in 2012 to $11.4 million in 2013 to $41.7 million in 2016--is due to an increase in production facilities in Thailand.\26\ The petitioner explains that evidence indicates very limited investment in building facilities in Thailand for production of diamond sawblades.\27\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 19 and Exhibit 9. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 14-16 and Exhibit 7. \27\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 19. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 14-16 and Exhibit 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Value of Processing in Thailand The petitioner reiterates that the joining of cores and segments constitutes a small portion of the cost and represents the smallest portion of the production costs of diamond sawblades imported into the United States. The petitioner provides information indicating that cores and segments produced in the PRC represent the vast majority of the value of the products exported to the United States.\28\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 19-20. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 16-17 and Exhibits 5-6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Value of Merchandise Produced in the PRC Is a Significant Portion of the Total Value of the Merchandise Exported to the United States The petitioner explains that the value of the segments and cores produced in China represent the vast majority of the value of the products exported to the United States.\29\ Further, the petitioner states that the cost breakdown of a typical finished diamond sawblade shows that manufacture of the segments and the core comprise the bulk of its value.\30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 20. \30\ See the petitioner's supplemental response at 7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E. Additional Factors To Consider in Determining Whether Action Is Necessary Section 781(b)(3) of the Act directs the Department to consider additional factors in determining whether to include merchandise assembled or completed in a foreign country within the scope of the order, such as: ``(A) the pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns, (B) whether the manufacturer or exporter of the merchandise . . . is affiliated with the person who uses the merchandise . . . to assemble or complete in the foreign country the merchandise that is subsequently imported into the United States, and (C) whether imports into the foreign country of the merchandise . . . have increased after the initiation of the investigation which resulted in the issuance of such order or finding.'' The petitioner claims an increase of the imports of diamond sawblades from Thailand from $0.4 million in 2005, before the investigation, to $4 million at the time of the imposition of the antidumping duty order in 2009 to $40.5 million in 2015 and $41.7 million in 2016 represents a noticeable shift in patterns of trade since the Department issued the antidumping duty order. Moreover, the petitioner provided import statistics showing a significant increase in U.S. imports of diamond sawblades from Thailand between 2005 and 2015 and in particular, massive increases in imports between 2010-2015.\31\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at Exhibit 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petitioner argues that there is evidence of affiliation between PRC producers and their Thai counterparts that are engaged in circumvention of the antidumping duty order. For example, the petitioner claims that Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., has established an affiliate in Thailand, i.e., Diamond Tools Technology (Thailand), for which CBP determined that there is a reasonable suspicion that Diamond Tools has entered merchandise into the United States through evasion.\32\ The petitioner explains that PRC producers of diamond sawblades, e.g., Bosun Tools Co., Ltd. have opened facilities in Thailand.\33\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 21-22. \33\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at Exhibit 8 and supplement to the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 10 for Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., and Diamond Tools Technology (Thailand) as an example. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analysis of the Allegation Based on our analysis of the petitioner's anti-circumvention allegation and the information provided therein, we find that an anti- circumvention inquiry of the antidumping duty order on diamond [[Page 57713]] sawblades from the PRC is warranted with respect to Diamond Tools. If warranted, the Department may, based on additional evidence it receives from interested parties regarding potential anti-circumvention of the PRC Sawblades Order by other Thai companies, consider conducting additional inquiries concurrently. With regard to whether the merchandise from Thailand is of the same class or kind as the merchandise produced in the PRC, the petitioner presented information to the Department indicating that, in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the merchandise being produced in and/or exported from Thailand is of the same class or kind as diamond sawblades produced in the PRC, which is subject to the antidumping duty order.\34\ Consequently, we find that the petitioner provided sufficient information in its request regarding the class or kind of merchandise to support the initiation of this anti-circumvention inquiry. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 13-14 and Exhibit 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With regard to completion or assembly of merchandise in a foreign country, in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(B) of the Act, the petitioner also presented to us two affidavits and the CBP Notice of Interim Measures indicating that diamond sawblades exported from Thailand to the United States by Diamond Tools are produced in Thailand using cores and segments produced and exported from the PRC.\35\ We find that the information presented by the petitioner regarding this criterion supports its request to initiate this anti-circumvention inquiry with respect to Diamond Tools. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \35\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 14-15 and Exhibits 9-12. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 2-6 and Exhibits 5, 6, and 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Department finds that the petitioner sufficiently addressed the factors described in section 781(b)(1)(C) and (2) of the Act regarding whether the process of assembly or completion of finished diamond sawblades in Thailand is minor or insignificant with respect to Diamond Tools. In particular, the petitioner provided information indicating that: (1) The level of investment in the production facilities is minimal when compared with the level of investment for the facilities used in the production of segments; (2) there is little or no research and development taking place in Thailand; (3) the joining process involves the highly automated laser-welding, or other simpler joining methods, of cores and segments produced in the PRC and subject to the antidumping duty order; (4) the production facilities in Thailand are more limited than facilities in the PRC; and (5) the value of the processing performed in Thailand is a small proportion of the value of the diamond sawblades imported into the United States. In addition, according to the petitioner, in an ongoing investigation under the Enforce and Protect Act, CBP has issued an interim measure stating that there is a reasonable suspicion that Diamond Tools has entered subject merchandise into the United States through evasion of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC.\36\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 9 and Exhibit 8. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 5-6 and Exhibit 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With respect to the value of the merchandise produced in the PRC, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act, the petitioner provided information indicating that the value of cores and segments produced in the PRC represents the vast majority of the value of the products exported to the United States.\37\ We find that the evidence presented by the petitioner address the requirements of this factor, as discussed above, for the purposes of initiating this anti-circumvention inquiry.\38\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at 20. See also the petitioner's supplemental response at 16-17 and Exhibits 5-6. \38\ See, e.g., the petitioner's supplemental response at Exhibits 5-6 and 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the final determinations of the antidumping duty investigations of diamond sawblades from the PRC and the Republic of Korea (Korea), we determined that the country in which cores and segments are joined is the country of origin of the finished diamond sawblades based on our factual findings that ``the attachment process imparts the essential quality of the diamond sawblade, coupled with the substantial capital investment and technical expertise that is required for the attachment process.'' \39\ In making these factual findings, we relied on specific information provided by respondents in the investigations.\40\ The CIT upheld our decisions with respect to the country of origin.\41\ However, we do not have sufficient information on the record indicating whether substantial investments have been made to the Thai companies in question for the joining process in Thailand. Also, we do not have sufficient information on the record about the technical expertise required for the joining process in Thailand.\42\ Moreover, our findings in the Final Determinations were made in the context of a country-of-origin determination, whereas we are considering the petitioner's request under the anti-circumvention provisions of the statute contained in section 781(b) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find the Final Determinations foreclose initiation of an anti- circumvention inquiry. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \39\ See Final Determination--China and accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 4, and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 29310 (May 22, 2006) (Final Determination--Korea), and accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 3 (collectively, Final Determinations). \40\ Id. \41\ See Advanced Tech. & Materials Co. v. United States, No. 09-00511, slip op. 11-122, at 7-10 (Ct. Int'l Trade Oct. 12, 2011) (upholding Final Determinations--China), and Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 06-00248, slip op. 13-130, at 23-25 (Ct. Intl Trade Oct. 24, 2013) (upholding Final Determinations--Korea). \42\ See Clearon Corp. v. United States, No. 13-00073, slip op. 14-88, at 33, 2014 WL 3643332, at *14 (Ct. Int'l Trade July 24, 2014) (``Although Commerce can and does take into consideration its policies and methodologies as expressed in different administrative case precedent when making its determination, it cannot take the factual information underlying those decisions into consideration unless those facts are properly on the record of the proceeding before it.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, with respect to the additional factors listed under section 781(b)(3) of the Act, we find that the petitioner presented evidence indicating that shipments of finished diamond sawblades from Thailand to the United States increased since the imposition of the antidumping duty order, further supporting initiation of these anti- circumvention inquiries.\43\ Accordingly, in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act, we are initiating a formal anti-circumvention inquiry concerning the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC with respect to Diamond Tools. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ See the petitioner's circumvention ruling request at Exhibit 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In connection with this anti-circumvention inquiry, in order to determine, among other things: (1) The extent to which PRC-sourced cores and segments are further processed into finished diamond sawblades in Thailand before the finished diamond sawblades are exported to the United States; and (2) whether the process of turning PRC-sourced cores and segments into finished diamond sawblades is minor or insignificant, the Department intends to issue questionnaires to solicit information from Diamond Tools related to these factors. The Department also intends to issue questionnaires to solicit information from Diamond Tools concerning its shipments of finished diamond sawblades to the United States [[Page 57714]] and the origin of the imported cores and segments being joined into finished diamond sawblades. Failure to respond completely to the Department's requests for information may result in the application of partial or total facts available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, which may include adverse inferences pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Based on these allegations, we are initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry concerning the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(h), with respect to such merchandise from Thailand as described above. Because we are initiating this anti-circumvention inquiry, we are not initiating a changed circumstances review. While we believe sufficient factual information has been submitted by the petitioner to support the initiation of an anti-circumvention inquiry, we do not find that the record supports the simultaneous issuance of a preliminary ruling. An anti-circumvention inquiry is typically complicated by its nature and can require information regarding production in both the country subject to the order and the third country in which the production of finished merchandise is completed. As we explained above, the Department intends to request additional information regarding the statutory criteria to determine whether shipments of finished diamond sawblades from Thailand are circumventing the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC. Thus, with further development of the record required before a preliminary ruling can be issued, the Department does not find it appropriate to issue a preliminary ruling at this time. Notification to Interested Parties In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(e), the Department finds that the issue of whether a product is included within the scope of an order cannot be determined based solely upon the application and the descriptions of the merchandise. Accordingly, the Department will notify by mail all parties on the Department's scope service list of the initiation of this anti-circumvention inquiry. In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1)(i) and (ii), in this notice of initiation issued under 19 CFR 351.225(e), we have included a description of the product that is the subject of this anti- circumvention inquiry (i.e., diamond sawblades finished in Thailand by the joining of cores and segments from the PRC) and an explanation of the reasons for the Department's decision to initiate an anti- circumvention inquiry, as provided above. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties at the applicable rate for each unliquidated entry of the merchandise at issue, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of initiation of the inquiry. The Department will establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues. In accordance with section 781(f) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f)(5), the Department intends to issue its final determination within 300 days of the date of publication of this initiation. This notice is published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(h). Dated: December 1, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non[hyphen]exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2017-26398 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2017 / Notices 57709
between the first and second or third described in (i)–(iv). These regulations CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal,
and fourth anniversary of the require any party, when submitting clarification and correction filed
publication of an antidumping duty factual information, to specify under pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3)
order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a which subsection of 19 CFR comments concerning the selection of a
determination under 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being surrogate country and surrogate values
351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or submitted and, if the information is and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning
suspended investigation (after sunset submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
review), the Secretary, if requested by a factual information already on the data; and (5) quantity and value
domestic interested party within 30 record, to provide an explanation questionnaires. Under certain
days of the date of publication of the identifying the information already on circumstances, the Department may
notice of initiation of the review, will the record that the factual information elect to specify a different time limit by
determine whether antidumping duties seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The which extension requests will be
have been absorbed by an exporter or regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also considered untimely for submissions
producer subject to the review if the provide specific time limits for such which are due from multiple parties
subject merchandise is sold in the factual submissions based on the type of simultaneously. In such a case, the
United States through an importer that factual information being submitted. Department will inform parties in the
is affiliated with such exporter or Please review the final rule, available at letter or memorandum setting forth the
producer. The request must include the http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/ deadline (including a specified time) by
name(s) of the exporter or producer for 1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to which extension requests must be filed
which the inquiry is requested. submitting factual information in this to be considered timely. This
segment. modification also requires that an
Gap Period Liquidation Any party submitting factual extension request must be made in a
For the first administrative review of information in an antidumping duty or separate, stand-alone submission, and
any order, there will be no assessment countervailing duty proceeding must clarifies the circumstances under which
of antidumping or countervailing duties certify to the accuracy and completeness the Department will grant untimely-
on entries of subject merchandise of that information.8 Parties are hereby filed requests for the extension of time
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, reminded that revised certification limits. These modifications are effective
for consumption during the relevant requirements are in effect for company/ for all segments initiated on or after
provisional-measures ‘‘gap’’ period, of government officials as well as their October 21, 2013. Please review the
the order, if such a gap period is representatives. All segments of any final rule, available at http://
applicable to the POR. antidumping duty or countervailing www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/
Administrative Protective Orders and duty proceedings initiated on or after html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
Letters of Appearance August 16, 2013, should use the formats submitting factual information in these
for the revised certifications provided at segments.
Interested parties must submit the end of the Final Rule.9 The These initiations and this notice are
applications for disclosure under Department intends to reject factual in accordance with section 751(a) of the
administrative protective orders in submissions in any proceeding Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR
accordance with the procedures segments if the submitting party does 351.221(c)(1)(i).
outlined in the Department’s regulations not comply with applicable revised
at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures Dated: December 1, 2017.
certification requirements.
apply to administrative reviews James Maeder,
included in this notice of initiation. Extension of Time Limits Regulation Senior Director performing the duties of
Parties wishing to participate in any of Parties may request an extension of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
these administrative reviews should time limits before a time limit and Countervailing Duty Operations.
ensure that they meet the requirements established under Part 351 expires, or as [FR Doc. 2017–26383 Filed 12–6–17; 8:45 am]
of these procedures (e.g., the filing of otherwise specified by the Secretary. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
separate letters of appearance as See 19 CFR 351.302. In general, an
discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). extension request will be considered
untimely if it is filed after the time limit DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Factual Information Requirements
established under Part 351 expires. For
The Department’s regulations identify submissions which are due from International Trade Administration
five categories of factual information in multiple parties simultaneously, an [A–570–900]
19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are extension request will be considered
summarized as follows: (i) Evidence untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof
submitted in response to questionnaires; the due date. Examples include, but are From the People’s Republic of China:
(ii) evidence submitted in support of not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry
allegations; (iii) publicly available briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309;
information to value factors under 19 AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
(2) factual information to value factors
CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the International Trade Administration,
under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR Department of Commerce.
the adequacy of remuneration under 19
351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 SUMMARY: In response to a request from
Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information 8 See section 782(b) of the Act. Coalition (the petitioner), the
9 See Certification of Factual Information To Department of Commerce (the
However, as noted in that initiation notice, this Import Administration During Antidumping and Department) is initiating an anti-
company was excluded from the CVD order as a Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July circumvention inquiry to determine
result of litigation. See Oil Country Tubular Goods 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also the frequently asked
from the Republic of Turkey: Amendment of questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
whether certain imports of diamond
Countervailing Duty Order, 82 FR 46483 (October http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ sawblades and parts thereof (diamond
26, 2017). This notice serves as a correction. info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. sawblades) comprised of cores and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_57943/page/1.svg)
![57714 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2017 / Notices
and the origin of the imported cores and for the Department’s decision to initiate DATES: Applicable September 29, 2017.
segments being joined into finished an anti-circumvention inquiry, as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
diamond sawblades. Failure to respond provided above. In accordance with 19 Chien-Min Yang, AD/CVD Operations,
completely to the Department’s requests CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department Office VII, Enforcement and
for information may result in the issues a preliminary affirmative Compliance, International Trade
application of partial or total facts determination, we will then instruct Administration, U.S. Department of
available pursuant to section 776(a) of CBP to suspend liquidation and require Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
the Act, which may include adverse a cash deposit of estimated antidumping NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
inferences pursuant to section 776(b) of duties at the applicable rate for each (202) 482–5484.
the Act. unliquidated entry of the merchandise
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Based on these allegations, we are at issue, entered or withdrawn from
initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry warehouse for consumption on or after Background
concerning the antidumping duty order the date of initiation of the inquiry. On June 30, 2014, the Department
on diamond sawblades from the PRC, The Department will establish a
published the Final Results pertaining
pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act schedule for questionnaires and
to mandatory respondents Golden Bird
and 19 CFR 351.225(h), with respect to comments on the issues. In accordance
and Xinboda, along with other
such merchandise from Thailand as with section 781(f) of the Act and 19
exporters.1 In the Final Results, the
described above. Because we are CFR 351.225(f)(5), the Department
initiating this anti-circumvention Department selected the Philippines as
intends to issue its final determination
inquiry, we are not initiating a changed the primary surrogate country and relied
within 300 days of the date of
circumstances review. on total adverse facts available (AFA)
publication of this initiation.
While we believe sufficient factual This notice is published in with respect to Golden Bird and found
information has been submitted by the accordance with section 781(b) of the that the company was part of the PRC-
petitioner to support the initiation of an Act and 19 CFR 351.225(h). wide entity.2 The Department calculated
anti-circumvention inquiry, we do not a rate of $1.82 per kilogram for Xinboda.
Dated: December 1, 2017. On November 30, 2015, the CIT
find that the record supports the
Gary Taverman, remanded for the Department to: (1)
simultaneous issuance of a preliminary
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Antidumping Consider evidence on the record
ruling. An anti-circumvention inquiry is
and Countervailing Duty Operations, concerning Golden Bird’s independence
typically complicated by its nature and performing the non-exclusive functions and
can require information regarding from government control to determine
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
production in both the country subject whether the company is entitled to
Enforcement and Compliance.
to the order and the third country in separate rate status based solely on that
[FR Doc. 2017–26398 Filed 12–6–17; 8:45 am]
which the production of finished evidence, and if so, to determine an
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
merchandise is completed. As we appropriate dumping margin specific to
explained above, the Department Golden Bird, taking into consideration
intends to request additional the Department’s sustained
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
information regarding the statutory determination to select total AFA and
criteria to determine whether shipments International Trade Administration applying the law extant at the time of
of finished diamond sawblades from the Final Results; (2) reconsider its
[A–570–831] surrogate country selection in the light
Thailand are circumventing the
antidumping duty order on diamond of the Court’s ruling concerning its
Fresh Garlic From the People’s
sawblades from the PRC. Thus, with interpretation of ‘‘significant
Republic of China: Notice of Court
further development of the record producer.’’ 3
Decision Not in Harmony With Final
required before a preliminary ruling can On February 29, 2016, the Department
Results of Administrative Review and
be issued, the Department does not find filed the Final Remand Results.4 In
Notice of Amended Final Results
it appropriate to issue a preliminary accordance with the Final Remand
ruling at this time. AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Results, the Department found, under
International Trade Administration, protest, that Golden Bird is not part of
Notification to Interested Parties Department of Commerce. the PRC wide entity and assigned a new
In accordance with 19 CFR SUMMARY: On September 19, 2017, the separate AFA rate of $2.24 per kilogram,
351.225(e), the Department finds that United States Court of International which represented Xinboda’s highest
the issue of whether a product is Trade (the CIT) entered final judgment transaction-specific margin from the
included within the scope of an order sustaining the Department of instant administrative review.5 The
cannot be determined based solely upon Commerce’s (the Department) second Department continued to find that the
the application and the descriptions of remand results pertaining to 18th Philippines was a significant producer,
the merchandise. Accordingly, the administrative review of the taking into account the ‘‘comparative’’
Department will notify by mail all antidumping duty order on fresh garlic
parties on the Department’s scope from the People’s Republic of China 1 See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of
service list of the initiation of this anti- (PRC) for Hebei Golden Trading Co., China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the
circumvention inquiry. In addition, in Ltd. (Golden Bird) and Shenzhen 18th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2011–2012, 79 FR 36721 (June 30, 2014) (Final
accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1)(i) Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda). Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision
and (ii), in this notice of initiation The Department is notifying the public
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Memorandum (IDM).
issued under 19 CFR 351.225(e), we that the final judgment in this case is 2 See IDM.
have included a description of the not in harmony with the final results 3 See Fresh Garlic Producers Association v.
product that is the subject of this anti- and partial rescission of the 18th United States, 121 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (CIT 2015).
4 See Memorandum to The File, ‘‘Final Results of
circumvention inquiry (i.e., diamond antidumping duty administrative review
Redetermination Pursuant to Remand: Fresh Garlic
sawblades finished in Thailand by the and that the Department has amended from the People’s Republic of China,’’ (February 29,
joining of cores and segments from the the dumping margins found for Xinboda 2016) (Final Remand Results).
PRC) and an explanation of the reasons and Golden Bird. 5 Id. at 6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_57943/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2017-12-07 00:34:58
Document Modified: 2017-12-07 00:34:58
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Dates | Applicable December 7, 2017. | |
| Contact | Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 57709 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR