83 FR 50894 - Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the Philippines: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 196 (October 10, 2018)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 196 (October 10, 2018)
| Page Range | 50894-50896 | |
| FR Document | 2018-21983 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 50894-50896] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-21983] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-565-801] Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the Philippines: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that Enlin Steel Corporation (Enlin), Vinox Corporation (aka Vinoc Corporation) (Vinox) and E N Corporation should be treated as a [[Page 50895]] single entity for purposes of cash deposit and liquidation rates. DATES: Applicable October 10, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Geiger or Fred Baker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2057 or (202) 482-2924, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 23, 2001, Commerce published the antidumping duty (AD) order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings) from the Philippines.\1\ On May 24, 2018, Core Pipe Products, Inc., Shaw Alloy Piping Products, Inc., and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners) requested that Commerce conduct a CCR pursuant to 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b).\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines, 66 FR 11257 (February 23, 2001) (the Order). \2\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines--Petitioners' Request for Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review,'' dated May 24, 2018 (Review Request). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petitioners alleged in their request that Enlin had been shipping subject merchandise to the United States at the ``all-others'' antidumping duty cash deposit rate in effect for Enlin's affiliates Vinox and E N Corporation, rather than at the company-specific rate of 33.81 percent established for Enlin in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. The petitioners also alleged that Vinox and E N Corporation were, and are currently, the same business entity as Enlin. The petitioners, therefore, requested that Commerce conduct a CCR to determine that Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation are affiliated companies that should be treated as a single entity. They also requested that Commerce notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that it should impose and collect antidumping duty deposits on all unliquidated entries made by Vinox and E N Corporation at Enlin's 33.81 percent rate. The petitioners submitted a supplement to their request on May 31, 2018.\3\ Enlin filed a letter objecting to the petitioners' request for a CCR on June 26, 2018.\4\ The petitioners filed a response to Enlin's letter on June 26, 2018.\5\ On July 5, 2018, we extended the deadline for initiating the CCR,\6\ and published the initiation of this CCR on August 14, 2018.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines--Petitioners' Supplement to Changed Circumstances Review Request,'' dated May 31, 2018 (Request Supplement). \4\ See Enlin's Letter, dated June 26, 2018. \5\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines-- Petitioners' Rebuttal to Respondents' Opposition to Changed Circumstances Review Request,'' dated June 26, 2018. \6\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines: Extension of Time for Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Decision,'' dated July 5, 2018. \7\ See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 83 FR 40227 (August 14, 2018) (Initiation Notice). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 20, 2018, we issued a questionnaire to Enlin, requesting further information about its relationship with Vinox and E N Corporation.\8\ On September 3, 2018, Enlin filed a response,\9\ stating that it agreed with the petitioners' requests that: (1) Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation should be treated as the same entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f); and (2) Commerce should instruct CBP to ``impose and collect antidumping duty deposits on all unliquidated entries made by Vinox and E N Corp{oration{time} '' of pipe fittings at the 33.81 percent cash deposit rate ``previously established for Enlin on their shipments of subject merchandise from the Philippines.'' \10\ Due to the complexities of this proceeding, we extended the deadline for issuing the final results of this changed circumstances review by an additional eleven days, until October 1, 2018, and later by an additional eight days, until October 9, 2018.\11\ On September 24, 2018, the petitioners filed a response to Enlin's questionnaire response, urging Commerce to apply the 33.81 percent cash deposit rate retroactively to all unliquidated entries made by Vinox and E N Corporation.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines: Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review Questionnaire,'' dated August 20, 2018. \9\ See Enlin's Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines: Questionnaire Response,'' dated September 3, 2018 (Questionnaire Response). \10\ See Review Request at 2 and 5; see also Request Supplement at 1, 2, and 4. \11\ See Memorandum, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review,'' dated September 20, 2018, and Memorandum ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review,'' dated October 1, 2018. \12\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pine Fittings from the Philippines: Petitioners' Response to Enlin's Questionnaire Response,'' dated September 24, 2018. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scope of the Order The products covered by the Order are certain stainless steel butt- weld pipe fittings. Certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings are under 14 inches in outside diameter (based on nominal pipe size), whether finished or unfinished. The products encompass all grades of stainless steel and ``commodity'' and ``specialty'' fittings. Specifically excluded from the definition are threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings, and fittings made from any material other than stainless steel. The fittings subject to the Order are generally designated under specification ASTM A403/A403M, the standard specification for Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Fittings, or its foreign equivalents (e.g., DIN or JIS specifications). This specification covers two general classes of fittings, WP and CR, of wrought austenitic stainless steel fittings of seamless and welded construction covered by the latest revision of ANSI B16.9, ANSI B16.11, and ANSI B16.28. Pipe fittings manufactured to specification ASTM A774, or its foreign equivalents, are also covered by the Order. The Order does not apply to cast fittings. Cast austenitic stainless steel pipe fittings are covered by specifications A351/A351M, A743/743M, and A744/A744M. The stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings subject to the Order are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive. Final Results of the Changed Circumstances Review Based on evidence on the record,\13\ and Enlin's assertion that it should be considered a single entity with Vinox and E N Corporation,\14\ we find that Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation are affiliated parties which should be treated as a single entity. While, historically, Commerce has not applied 19 CFR 351.401(f) in the context of CCRs, we find that for purposes of this particular segment of the proceeding, the criteria in the regulation are relevant to ensure that the administration and effect of the underlying Order are not undermined. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ See Review Request at Attachments 1-7; see also Request Supplement at Attachments 1-4. \14\ See Questionnaire Response. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 50896]] The petitioners claim that Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation are affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), based on Enlin's direct statement of affiliation with Vinox in its Section A questionnaire response of the initial investigation, evidence of control over Vinox and E N Corporation by the same individuals or family members, similar or identical company addresses, and a common Canadian trademark.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ See Review Request; see also Request Supplement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), Commerce will collapse affiliated entities when there is: (1) Evidence that the entities have production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities; and (2) a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production, such as through common ownership, overlap of directors and managers, and intertwined operations. There is evidence on the record to support that these criteria have been met.\16\ Specifically, record evidence demonstrates that: (1) Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation are affiliated parties that each produce or have produced the subject merchandise and have shipped it to the same or similar importers in the United States, and (2) there is a ``significant potential for the manipulation of price or production,'' if we do not collapse the companies due to the level of common direction or control.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ Id. \17\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, given the evidence provided by the petitioners,\18\ along with Enlin's acknowledgement that the three companies should be treated as a single entity and that CBP should collect antidumping duty cash deposits on all unliquidated entries made by Vinox and E N Corporation at the rate assigned to Enlin,\19\ we find that: (1) There were sufficient changed circumstances in the trading patterns and activities of Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation that the petitioners allege resulted in a possible evasion of the Order; (2) Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation should be collapsed as a single entity; (3) the collapsed entity is subject to the cash deposit rate assigned to Enlin in the LTFV investigation; \20\ and (4) the results of this CCR are applied retroactively from the publication date of the Order.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ Id. \19\ See Questionnaire Response, where Enlin stated that it agreed with the petitioners' request (in the Review Request at 2 and 5, and Request Supplement at 1, 2, and 4). \20\ See the Order, 66 FR 11257. \21\ See, e.g., Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 83 FR 45094 (September 5, 2018), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 5-6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection As a result of this determination, we find that both Vinox and E N Corporation are subject to the cash deposit rate currently assigned to Enlin (i.e., 33.81 percent).\22\ Therefore, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue suspension of liquidation and to collect estimated antidumping duties for all unliquidated entries and shipments of subject merchandise produced and exported by Enlin, Vinox, and/or E N Corporation at the cash deposit rate of 33.81 percent currently assigned to Enlin, from the date of the publication of the Order.\23\ This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until further notice. We will also instruct CBP to liquidate any unliquidated entries and shipments of subject merchandise produced and exported by Vinox and/or E N Corporation made during periods for which Commerce has completed an administrative review or for which no administrative review was requested (i.e., through and including January 31, 2018) at the 33.81 percent rate currently assigned to Enlin. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See the Order, 66 FR 11257. \23\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notification to Parties This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and (4) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). Dated: October 3, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2018-21983 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![50894 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Notices
a request for a hearing is made, parties merchandise they sold to the requirement could result in Commerce’s
will be notified of the time and date for intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading presumption that reimbursement of
the hearing to be held at the U.S. company, or exporter) was destined for antidumping duties occurred and the
Department of Commerce, 1401 the United States. In such instances, we subsequent assessment of double
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, will instruct CBP to liquidate antidumping duties.
DC 20230.12 unreviewed entries at the all-others rate We are issuing and publishing these
Commerce intends to issue the final if there is no rate for the intermediate results in accordance with sections
results of this administrative review, company(ies) involved in the 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
including the results of its analysis transaction.15 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
raised in any written briefs, not later We intend to issue liquidation Dated: October 3, 2018.
than 120 days after the publication date instructions to CBP 15 days after Gary Taverman,
of this notice, pursuant to section publication of the final results of this Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless otherwise review. and Countervailing Duty Operations,
extended.13 performing the non-exclusive functions and
Cash Deposit Requirements
Assessment Rates duties of the Assistant Secretary for
The following deposit requirements Enforcement and Compliance.
Upon completion of the will be effective for all shipments of the
administrative review, Commerce shall Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in
subject merchandise entered, or
determine, and CBP shall assess, the Preliminary Decision Memorandum
withdrawn from warehouse, for
antidumping duties on all appropriate consumption on or after the publication I. Summary
entries. date of the final results of this II. Background
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), administrative review, as provided by III. Scope of the Order
where DOSCO and HiSteel reported the section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The IV. Companies Not Selected for Individual
entered value of their U.S. sales, we Examination
cash deposit rate for the exporters listed V. Discussion of the Methodology
calculated importer-specific ad valorem above will be that established in the a. Date of Sale
duty assessment rates based on the ratio final results of this review, except if the b. Determination of Comparison Method
of the total amount of dumping rate is less than 0.50 percent and, c. Results of Differential Pricing Analysis
calculated for the examined sales to the therefore, de minimis within the d. Product Comparisons
total entered value of the sales for which meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in e. Export Price/Constructed Export Price
entered value was reported. Where the which case the cash deposit rate will be f. Normal Value
respondents did not report entered zero; (2) for previously investigated i. Particular Market Situation
value, we calculated the entered value ii. Home Market Viability and Comparison
companies not participating in this Market
in order to calculate the assessment rate. review, the cash deposit will continue iii. Level of Trade
Where either the respondent’s weighted- to be the company-specific rate iv. Affiliated-Party Transactions and
average dumping margin is zero or de published for the most recently Arm’s-Length Test
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR completed segment; (3) if the exporter is v. Cost of Production Analysis
351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific not a firm covered in this review, or the 1. Cost Averaging Methodology
rate is zero or de minimis, we will original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) a. Significant of Cost Changes
instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate investigation, but the manufacturer is, b. Linkage Between Sales and Cost
entries without regard to antidumping Information
the cash deposit rate will be the rate 2. Calculation of COP
duties. We intend to instruct CBP to established for the most recent segment 3. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
take into account the ‘‘provisional for the manufacturer of the 4. Results of the COP Test
measures deposit cap,’’ in accordance merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit vi. Calculation of Normal Value Based on
with 19 CFR 351.212(d). rate for all other manufacturers or Comparison Market Prices
For the companies which were not exporters will continue to be 3.24 vii. Calculation of Normal Value Based on
selected for individual review, we will percent, the all-others rate made Constructed Value
assign an assessment rate based on the effective by the LTFV investigation.16 VI. Currency Conversion
average 14 of the cash deposit rates VII. Recommendation
These deposit requirements, when
calculated for DOSCO and HiSteel, imposed, shall remain in effect until [FR Doc. 2018–21980 Filed 10–9–18; 8:45 am]
excluding any which are de minimis or further notice. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
determined entirely based on adverse
facts available. The final results of this Notification to Importers
review shall be the basis for the This notice also serves as a DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
assessment of antidumping duties on preliminary reminder to importers of
entries of merchandise covered by the International Trade Administration
their responsibility under 19 CFR
final results of this review and for future 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding [A–565–801]
deposits of estimated duties, where the reimbursement of antidumping
applicable. duties prior to liquidation of the Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
Commerce’s ‘‘automatic assessment’’ relevant entries during this review From the Philippines: Final Results of
practice will apply to entries of subject period. Failure to comply with this Changed Circumstances Review
merchandise during the POR produced AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
by companies included in these final 15 For a full discussion of this practice, see
International Trade Administration,
results of review for which the reviewed Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 Department of Commerce.
companies did not know that the (May 6, 2003). SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
16 See Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon
12 See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
(Commerce) finds that Enlin Steel
Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Korea,
13 See Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey: Antidumping
Corporation (Enlin), Vinox Corporation
14 This rate was calculated as discussed in Duty Orders, 81 FR 62865, 62866 (September 13, (aka Vinoc Corporation) (Vinox) and E
footnote 4, above. 2016). N Corporation should be treated as a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Oct 09, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_51090/page/1.svg)
![50896 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Notices
The petitioners claim that Enlin, applied retroactively from the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Vinox, and E N Corporation are publication date of the Order.21
affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33) of International Trade Administration
Instructions to U.S. Customs and
the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), based on [C–533–844]
Border Protection
Enlin’s direct statement of affiliation
with Vinox in its Section A As a result of this determination, we Certain Lined Paper Products From
questionnaire response of the initial find that both Vinox and E N India: Preliminary Results of
investigation, evidence of control over Corporation are subject to the cash Countervailing Duty Administrative
Vinox and E N Corporation by the same deposit rate currently assigned to Enlin Review; Calendar Year 2016
individuals or family members, similar (i.e., 33.81 percent).22 Therefore,
or identical company addresses, and a Commerce will instruct CBP to continue AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
common Canadian trademark.15 suspension of liquidation and to collect International Trade Administration,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), estimated antidumping duties for all Department of Commerce.
Commerce will collapse affiliated unliquidated entries and shipments of SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
entities when there is: (1) Evidence that subject merchandise produced and (Commerce) preliminarily determines
the entities have production facilities exported by Enlin, Vinox, and/or E N that Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT
for similar or identical products that Corporation at the cash deposit rate of Ltd. (Goldenpalm), a producer/exporter
would not require substantial retooling 33.81 percent currently assigned to of lined paper products (lined paper)
of either facility in order to restructure Enlin, from the date of the publication from India, received countervailable
manufacturing priorities; and (2) a of the Order.23 This cash deposit subsidies during the period of review
significant potential for the requirement shall remain in effect until (POR) January 1, 2016, through
manipulation of price or production, further notice. We will also instruct CBP December 31, 2016. We invite interested
such as through common ownership, to liquidate any unliquidated entries parties to comment on these preliminary
overlap of directors and managers, and and shipments of subject merchandise results.
intertwined operations. There is produced and exported by Vinox and/or DATES: Applicable October 10, 2018.
evidence on the record to support that E N Corporation made during periods
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
these criteria have been met.16 for which Commerce has completed an
Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office III,
Specifically, record evidence administrative review or for which no
Enforcement and Compliance,
demonstrates that: (1) Enlin, Vinox, and administrative review was requested
International Trade Administration,
E N Corporation are affiliated parties (i.e., through and including January 31,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
that each produce or have produced the 2018) at the 33.81 percent rate currently
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
subject merchandise and have shipped assigned to Enlin.
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1009.
it to the same or similar importers in the Notification to Parties SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
United States, and (2) there is a
‘‘significant potential for the This notice is the only reminder to Background
manipulation of price or production,’’ if parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their On September 28, 2006, Commerce
we do not collapse the companies due issued the countervailing duty (CVD)
to the level of common direction or responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information order on lined paper from India.1
control.17 Goldenpalm requested that Commerce
Accordingly, given the evidence disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely conduct an administrative review of the
provided by the petitioners,18 along
written notification of the return or Lined Paper Order with respect to the
with Enlin’s acknowledgement that the
destruction of APO materials or company, and on November 13, 2017,
three companies should be treated as a
conversion to judicial protective order is Commerce published in the Federal
single entity and that CBP should
hereby requested. Failure to comply Register a notice of initiation of an
collect antidumping duty cash deposits
with the regulations and terms of an administrative review of the CVD order
on all unliquidated entries made by
APO is a sanctionable violation. for Goldenpalm for the POR.2 On
Vinox and E N Corporation at the rate
Commerce is issuing and publishing January 23, 2018, Commerce exercised
assigned to Enlin,19 we find that: (1)
these results in accordance with its discretion to toll all deadlines
There were sufficient changed
sections 751(b)(1) and (4) and 777(i) of affected by the closure of the Federal
circumstances in the trading patterns
the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 19 Government from January 20 through
and activities of Enlin, Vinox, and E N
CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). 22, 2018.3 On May 31, 2018, Commerce
Corporation that the petitioners allege
extended the time period for issuing
resulted in a possible evasion of the Dated: October 3, 2018.
these preliminary results by 120 days,
Order; (2) Enlin, Vinox, and E N Gary Taverman,
until October 3,2018, in accordance
Corporation should be collapsed as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
single entity; (3) the collapsed entity is and Countervailing Duty Operations, 1 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
subject to the cash deposit rate assigned performing the non-exclusive functions and Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper
to Enlin in the LTFV investigation; 20 duties of the Assistant Secretary for Products from the People’s Republic of China;
and (4) the results of this CCR are Enforcement and Compliance. Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined
[FR Doc. 2018–21983 Filed 10–9–18; 8:45 am] Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the
15 See
People’s Republic of China; and Notice of
Review Request; see also Request BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Supplement.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949
16 Id. 21 See, e.g., Large Power Transformers from the (September 28, 2006) (Lined Paper Order).
17 Id.
Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of 2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
18 Id. Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR
19 See Questionnaire Response, where Enlin 83 FR 45094 (September 5, 2018), and 52268 (November 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice).
stated that it agreed with the petitioners’ request (in accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 3 See memorandum, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the
the Review Request at 2 and 5, and Request 5–6. Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated
Supplement at 1, 2, and 4). 22 See the Order, 66 FR 11257.
January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of
20 See the Order, 66 FR 11257. 23 Id. the proceeding have been extended by three days.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Oct 09, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_51090/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-10 17:38:02
Document Modified: 2018-10-10 17:38:02
| 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 October 10, 2018. | |
| Contact | Julie Geiger or Fred Baker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2057 or (202) 482-2924, respectively. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 50894 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR