83 FR 63474 - Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 236 (December 10, 2018)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 236 (December 10, 2018)
| Page Range | 63474-63478 | |
| FR Document | 2018-26653 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 63474-63478] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-26653] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-909] Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 5, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) entered final judgment in The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. v. United States, sustaining the final results of remand redetermination pertaining to the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from the People's Republic of China (China), covering the period of review (POR) of January 23, 2008 through July 31, 2009. The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the first administrative review or the [[Page 63475]] amended final results of the first administrative review, and that, therefore, Commerce is amending the final results with respect to its partial rescission of review and liquidation of certain entries that received combination rates, the dumping margin assigned to the sole mandatory respondent, and the dumping margin assigned to the separate rate companies. DATES: Applicable October 15, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0413. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In the final results of the first administrative review \1\ of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from China, Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 13.90 percent for the sole cooperating mandatory respondent, The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. (Stanley), and assigned that margin to the 22 companies who had demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate (The Separate Rate Companies).\2\ Commerce also rescinded the review with respect to certain companies that certified that they made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.\3\ In the amended final results of the first administrative review,\4\ after correcting two ministerial errors, Commerce revised Stanley's dumping margin to 10.63 percent, again assigning that rate to the Separate Rate Companies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 16379 (March 23, 2011) (Final Results 2008-2009), and accompanying Issues & Decision Memorandum (Final Results IDM). \2\ The Separate Rate Companies are: (1) Aironware (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; (2) Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp.; (3) China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.; (4) Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; (5) Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd.; (6) Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; (7) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; (8) Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; (9) Jisco Corporation (``Jisco''); (10) Koram Panagene Co., Ltd. (``Koram Panagene''); (11) Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., Ltd.; (12) Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; (13) Qingdao D & L Group Ltd.; (14) Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.; (15) Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (16) Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; (17) Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd.; (18) Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (19) Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd.; (20) Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.; (21) Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan; and (22) Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd. \3\ See Final Results 2008-2009, 76 FR at 16380. The no shipment companies are: (1) Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; (2) Certified Products International Inc.; (3) CYM (Nanjing) Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd.; (4) Dagang Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (5) Hebei Super Star Pneumatic Nails Co., Ltd.; (6) Hong Kong Yu Xi Co., Ltd.; (7) Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd.; (8) Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product Co., Ltd.; (9) Shanghai March Import & Export Company Ltd.; (10) Shaoxing Chengye Metal Producting Co., Ltd.; (11) Suzhou Yaotian Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (12) Tianjin Chentai International Trading Co., Ltd.; (13) Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (14) Tianjin Longxing (Group) Huanyu Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; (15) Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Xiangtong Intl. Industry & Trade Corp.; (16) Tianjin Shenyuan Steel Producting Group Co., Ltd.; (17) Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd.; and (18) Wuxi Chengye Metal Products Co., Ltd. \4\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 23279 (April 26, 2011) (Amended Final Results 2008- 2009). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Final Results 2008-2009 and Amended Final Results 2008-2009 were challenged in two separate cases before the CIT.\5\ After certain claims were dismissed, eight distinct claims remained before the Court. Of those claims, the Court sustained several in two prior rulings; \6\ other claims were subjected to voluntary \7\ or court-ordered \8\ remand redeterminations, before being sustained by the CIT on October 5, 2018.\9\ Between the three total court decisions, and four cumulative remand redeterminations, two claims resulted ultimately in changes to Final Results 2008-2009 and Amended Final Results 2008-2009, as explained below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Case No. 11-102; and Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, CIT Case No. 11-119. The cases were partially consolidated into Case No. 11-102 in 2011, then fully consolidated prior to the Court's final ruling on October 5, 2018. \6\ See The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. v. United States, 964 F.Supp.2d 1311, 1324 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013) (Stanley Works I); and Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 949 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1263-1264 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013) (Mid Continent). \7\ See Stanley Works I at 1317. \8\ See Stanley Works I at 1324; Mid Continent at 1279-1280. \9\ See The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems, Co., Ltd. et al v. United States, Court No. 11-102, Slip Op. 18-134 (CIT Oct. 5, 2018) (Stanley Works II). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The court sustained Commerce on several issues in its two prior rulings. Briefly, those issues pertained to: Whether net U.S. prices and normal value were calculated on the same basis; the propriety of using certain data to value electricity; deciding not to apply facts otherwise available, despite missing factors of production; electing not to use intermediate input methodology to calculate normal value; and, limiting to two the number of mandatory respondents.\10\ This left two issues unresolved, discussed below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See Stanley Works I at 1324; Mid Continent at 1279-1280. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Treatment of Certain Entries Under Certified Products International Inc.'s Combination Rates The first issue pertains to the treatment of entries of subject merchandise attributed to Certified Products International Inc. (CPI), a Taiwanese reseller that does not produce steel nails but, rather, purchases them from various unaffiliated producers in China and resells them to customers in the United States. In the first administrative review, CPI claimed that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR; however, Commerce obtained data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that showed entries under 23 producer/exporter combination rates which identified CPI as the exporter. Therefore, Commerce considered whether CPI or its unaffiliated Chinese producers were the respondent(s), based on which party had knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the U.S. market. CPI asserted that it had not exported any subject merchandise during the review period and should not, therefore, be considered the exporter of the entries attributed to it. The company indicated, rather, that it had purchased nails for resale from 13 of the 23 unaffiliated producers that had entered subject merchandise into the United States during the POR using CPI's combination rates. Specifically, CPI acknowledged that it had sourced nails from these 13 companies and stated that these 13 suppliers had knowledge that the sales were ultimately destined for the United States. CPI did not acknowledge having used the remaining 10 combination rates during the review period. In the Final Results 2008-2009, based on the information from CPI and its review of the record evidence, Commerce determined, for the entries under the combination rates associated with the 13 producers that had knowledge that goods sold to CPI were destined for the United States, to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the applicable separate rate for the respective producers.\11\ For the entries associated with the other 10 combinations that Commerce determined were misattributed to CPI, Commerce indicated that it would instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the rate in effect at the time of [[Page 63476]] the entry.\12\ Accordingly, Commerce rescinded the review with respect to CPI.\13\ Commerce's determination was challenged in CIT Court No. 11-119. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 9. Pursuant to the Amended Final Results 2008-2009, the applicable separate rate was 10.63 percent. \12\ Id. \13\ See Final Results 2008-2009, 76 FR at 16380. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Mid Continent, the CIT held that Commerce's determination conflicted with the approach taken on the same issue in cases involving market economies, and remanded the issue for further consideration, particularly in light of a subsequent rule change \14\ which was finalized after the Final Results 2008-2009 were issued.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (NME Reseller Policy Statement). \15\ See Mid Continent at 1287-1288. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Mid Continent First Remand Redetermination, Commerce found that the entries attributed to CPI's combination rates should be treated in a manner consistent with the NME Reseller Policy Statement. Therefore, Commerce determined to amend its previous rescission of the administrative review with respect to CPI, instead issuing final results of review with respect to CPI. Specifically, with regard to entries associated with the 10 combination rates that CPI did not acknowledge using, Commerce determined it appropriate to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the China-wide rate of 118.04 percent, because record evidence demonstrated that none of the companies associated with the 10 combination rates made the relevant export sales. Commerce continued to find the entries associated with the remaining 13 combination rates entitled to liquidation at the applicable separate rate for the respective producers, each of whom had knowledge of sales to the United States. Further, because of an intervening remand redetermination in the separate first administrative review litigation in CIT Court No. 11-102, Commerce determined to apply the revised separate rate of 15.43 percent to such entries.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 13-115 (March 5, 2014) (Mid Continent First Remand Redetermination), referring to Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. et al v. United States, Slip Op. 13-118 (March 5, 2014) (Stanley Works First Remand Redetermination). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several months later, before the Court issued a decision, Commerce requested a voluntary remand to address part of its first remand redetermination, which was granted.\17\ In the Mid Continent Second Remand Redetermination, Commerce sought to clarify the rate or rates at which entries associated with three of the producers within the grouping of 13 combination rates should be liquidated, because the underlying administrative review had been rescinded for those three producers.\18\ Consequently, Commerce found that the entries attributed to the three combination rates associated with producers for which the underlying administrative review had been rescinded should be liquidated at the rate in effect at the time of entry, not the separate rate calculated in the review.\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ See Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United States, Court No. 11-119, Order of Sept. 30, 2015. \18\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 43149, 43149-43150 (July 23, 2010). \19\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 13-115 (Nov. 13, 2015) (Mid Continent Second Remand Redetermination). The names of the three producers, which constitute business proprietary information (BPI), are identified in the BPI version of the remand redetermination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 5, 2018, the CIT sustained Commerce's remand redeterminations pertaining to the treatment of entries under CPI's combination rates. The CIT held that, because there was no further challenge as to which entries would receive the CPI combination rates, the Court would not address the issue further.\20\ In addition, in response to challenges by certain companies, including CPI, the Court sustained Commerce's remand redetermination to apply the revised separate rate of 15.43 percent to entries under combination rates associated with the 10 producers that had knowledge that goods sold to CPI were destined for the United States, and that remained subject to review.\21\ Thus, in all respects, Commerce's treatment of entries under CPI's combination rates was sustained. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See Stanley Works II, Slip Op. 18-134 at 7. \21\ Id. at 16-18. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surrogate Financial Statements The second issue pertains to Commerce's selection of financial statements for surrogate financial ratios. In the Final Results 2008- 2009, Commerce selected the financial statements of three companies to use as the source of surrogate financial ratios in the underlying review: Bansidhar Granites Private Limited (Bansidhar), J&K Wire & Steel Industries (J&K), and Nasco Steels Private Ltd. (Nasco). Commerce found that each of these companies produced steel nails, an ``identical'' product, and declined to use the financial statements from a fourth company, Sundram Fasteners Ltd. (Sundram), finding that Sundram did not manufacture steel nails or comparable merchandise.\22\ Commerce's determination was challenged in CIT Court No. 11-102. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See Final Results 2008-2009 and IDM at Comment 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- During litigation, Commerce published the final results of the second administrative review of steel nails from China.\23\ In the Second Review Final Results, Commerce stated that it had refined its practice with respect to the determination of whether a company is a producer of ``identical'' or ``comparable'' merchandise within the context of calculating surrogate values for manufacturing overhead, general expenses and profit.\24\ Given the modified practice, Commerce sought a voluntary remand in the first administrative review litigation, to reconsider its determination concerning the selection of financial statements. The Court granted Commerce's request.\25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of the Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 12556 (March 1, 2012) (Second Review Final Results), and accompanying Issues & Decision Memorandum (Second Review IDM). \24\ See Second Review IDM at Comment 2. \25\ See Stanley Works I, 964 F. Supp. 2d at 1342. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Stanley Works First Remand Redetermination, Commerce continued to find it appropriate to use the financial statements of Bansidhar and Nasco, two of the three companies selected in the Final Results 2008-2009, to calculate the surrogate financial ratios. Commerce found, however, that it was no longer appropriate to use the financial statements of the third initially-selected company, J&K, and instead found it appropriate to use the financial statements of another company, Sundram, that had been rejected previously. In particular, Commerce found Sundram to be a producer of comparable merchandise but excluded J&K as a producer of non-comparable merchandise. Commerce also found that the financial statements of all four companies showed no receipt of countervailable subsidies, that the differences in the companies' scale of production did not render the data unreasonable, that the consumption of steel wire rod--the main input in the production of nails--was not determinative of whether a company is a producer of comparable merchandise, and that Sundram's financial statements were not aberrational. Based on this redetermination, Commerce recalculated the surrogate financial ratios and the margin for Stanley, and [[Page 63477]] the Separate Rate Companies, was revised to 15.43 percent.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. et al v. United States, Slip Op. 13-118 (March 5, 2014) (Stanley Works First Remand Redetermination). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several months later, before the Court issued a decision, Commerce requested a voluntary remand to address part of its first remand redetermination, which was granted.\27\ In the Stanley Works Second Remand Redetermination, Commerce corrected its error in using Nasco's overhead ratio calculated in the Final Results 2008-2009, rather than that used in the Amended Final Results 2008-2009. Commerce relied on this ratio in a comparison with Sundram's overhead ratio to demonstrate why Sundram's financial statements are not aberrational. Commerce found that there were no ``extraordinary'' items within Sundram's financial statements, and that inherent variations in overhead ratios derived from a limited number of available financial statements cannot provide a basis for finding one company's ratio aberrational.\28\ Stanley raised numerous arguments related to Commerce's remand redeterminations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ See Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. et al v. United States, Court No. 11-102, Order of Feb. 18, 2015. \28\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. et al v. United States, Slip Op. 13-118 (April 16, 2015) (Stanley Works Second Remand Redetermination). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 5, 2018, the CIT sustained Commerce's remand redeterminations pertaining to the selection of financial statements for surrogate financial ratios. First, the Court affirmed Commerce's determination that Commerce did not have a reason to believe or suspect that Sundram may have received countervailable subsidies based on the record information.\29\ Second, the Court upheld Commerce's revised methodology for determining that J&K was not a suitable surrogate financial company because its activities related primarily to the production and sale of non-comparable merchandise, while finding that Sundram produced comparable merchandise.\30\ Third, the Court held that Commerce's finding that Sundram's overhead ratios were not aberrational or distortive is supported by substantial evidence, and could be included in the averaging of financial data for surrogate value purposes.\31\ Accordingly, the Court affirmed applying the revised margin, 15.43 percent, to Stanley and the Separate Rate Companies.\32\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ See Stanley Works II, Slip Op. 18-134 at 9-13. \30\ Id. at 13-14. \31\ Id. at 14-15. \32\ Id. at 8 and 18. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,\33\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\34\ 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), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with Commerce's determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's October 5, 2018, final judgment sustaining issues related to the treatment of the entries associated with CPI's combinations rates, and sustaining application of the revised margin calculated for Stanley and the Separate Rate Companies, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Final Results 2008-2009 and Amended Final Results 2008-2009. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). \34\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second Amended Final Results 2008-2009 Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the Final Results 2008-2009 and Amended Final Results 2008-2009 with respect to the rate assigned to Stanley and the 22 Separate Rate Companies listed below. Accordingly, the revised weighted-average dumping margins for these companies are as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Weighted-average Exporter dumping margin (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., 15.43 Ltd................................................ Aironware (Shanghai) Co., Ltd....................... 15.43 Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp......................... 15.43 China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.......... 15.43 Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd........... 15.43 Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd.............. 15.43 Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd.. 15.43 Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.......... 15.43 Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products 10.63 Co., Ltd.. 15.43 Jisco Corporation................................... 15.43 Koram Panagene Co., Ltd............................. 15.43 Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., Ltd.................. 15.43 Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd......... 15.43 Qingdao D & L Group Ltd............................. 15.43 Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.................... 15.43 Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.......... 15.43 Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd....... 15.43 Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd............ 15.43 Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.............. 15.43 Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business 15.43 Co., Ltd........................................... Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.............. 15.43 Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of 15.43 Zhongshan.......................................... Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd....... 15.43 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [[Page 63478]] Commerce is also amending the Amended Final Results 2008-2009 with respect to CPI. In particular, Commerce is amending its previous rescission of the administrative review and is no longer rescinding the review with respect to CPI but, instead, is issuing final results of review with respect to CPI. Moreover, Commerce intends to issue instructions to CBP to liquidate entries entered under CPI's 23 combination rates as follows. For the 10 combination rates that CPI does not acknowledge using, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries under those 10 combination rates at the China-wide rate of 118.04 percent because the record evidence demonstrates that none of the companies associated with these 10 combination rates made the relevant export sale. For the 10 combination rates that CPI does acknowledge using and for which each producer had knowledge the merchandise was destined for the United States, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries under those 10 combination rates at the separate rate of 15.43 percent, determined for each respective producer during the administrative review. For the remaining three combination rates, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the rate in effect at the time of entry, because the three producers at issue were not included in the final results of the administrative review. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties in accordance with the above. Cash Deposit Requirements The cash deposit rates for Stanley and the 22 Separate Rate Companies have changed as a result of subsequent administrative reviews. Therefore, this amended final results does not change the later-established cash deposit rates for these companies. Notification 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: December 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. 2018-26653 Filed 12-7-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![63474 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Notices
Cash Deposit Requirements Unless the deadline is extended 1. Inward Processing Regime (IPR)
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 2. Regional Investment Incentives
Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the D. Programs Preliminarily Determined To
Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP Act, Commerce intends to issue the final
Provide No Measurable Benefit During
to collect cash deposits of estimated results of this administrative review,
the POR
countervailing duties in the amount including the results of our analysis of 1. Assistance to Offset Costs Related to
indicated above for the reviewed the issues raised by parties in their Antidumping/CVD Investigations
companies, with regard to shipments of comments, within 120 days after 2. Reduction and Exemption of Licensing
subject merchandise entered, or publication of these preliminary results. Fees for Renewable Resource Power
withdrawn from warehouse, for Plants
Notification to Interested Parties 3. Assistance for Participation in Trade
consumption on or after the date of Fairs Abroad
publication of the final results of this These preliminary results of review
are issued and published in accordance E. Programs Preliminarily Determined To
review. For all non-reviewed firms, we Not Be Used
will instruct CBP to collect cash with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
1. Provision of Lignite for LTAR
deposits at the most recent company- the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and
2. Purchase of Electricity for MTAR—Sales
specific or all-others rate applicable to 351.221(b)(4). via Build-Operate-Own, Build-Operate-
the company, as appropriate. These cash Dated: December 3, 2018. Transfer, and Transfer of Operating
deposit requirements, when imposed, Gary Taverman, Rights Contracts
shall remain in effect until further Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 3. Research and Development Grant
Program
notice. and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and 4. Export Credits, Loans, and Insurance
Disclosure and Public Comment duties of the Assistant Secretary for from Turk Eximbank
Enforcement and Compliance. 5. Large-Scale Investment Incentives
We will disclose to the parties in this 6. Strategic Investment Incentives
proceeding the calculations performed Appendix 7. Incentives for Research & Development
in reaching the preliminary results Activities
within five days of the date of List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 8. Regional Development Subsidies
Decision Memorandum
publication of this notice.11 Interested 9. Comprehensive Investment Incentives
parties may submit written arguments I. Summary 10. Preferential Financing from the Turkish
(case briefs) on the preliminary results II. Background Development Bank
III. Intent to Rescind the 2016 Administrative 11. Liquefied Natural Gas for LTAR
within 30 days of publication of the Review, in Part VIII. Conclusion
preliminary results, and rebuttal A. DufEnergy Trading SA (DufEnergy);
comments (rebuttal briefs) within five [FR Doc. 2018–26654 Filed 12–7–18; 8:45 am]
Duferco Celik Ticaret Limited (Duferco);
days after the time limit for filing case and Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
briefs.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR (Ekinciler)
351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be B. Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal
limited to issues raised in the case Endustrisi A.S. (Habas) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
IV. Non-Selected Rate
briefs. Parties who submit arguments are
V. Scope of the Order International Trade Administration
requested to submit with the argument: VI. Subsidies Valuation Information
(1) Statement of the issue; (2) a brief A. Allocation Period [A–570–909]
summary of the argument; and (3) a B. Cross-Ownership
table of authorities.13 1. Colakoglu Certain Steel Nails From the People’s
Interested parties who wish to request 2. Icdas Republic of China: Notice of Court
a hearing, or to participate if one is 3. Kaptan Decision Not in Harmony With the
requested, must submit a written C. Denominators Final Results of the First Antidumping
D. Loan Benchmarks and Discount Rates Duty Administrative Review and Notice
request within 30 days after the date of
E. Uncreditworthiness of Icdas Elektrik of Amended Final Results of the First
publication of this notice.14 Requests VII. Analysis of Programs
should contain the party’s name, A. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Antidumping Duty Administrative
address, and telephone number, the Be Countervailable Review
number of participants, and a list of the 1. Deduction From Taxable Income for AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
issues to be discussed. If Commerce Export Revenue
2. Rediscount Program International Trade Administration,
receives a request for a hearing, we will Department of Commerce.
inform parties of the scheduled date for 3. Purchase of Electricity Generated from
Renewable Resources for More Than SUMMARY: On October 5, 2018, the
the hearing, which will be held at the Adequate Remuneration (MTAR)— United States Court of International
main Department of Commerce building Renewable Energy Sources Support Trade (CIT or Court) entered final
at a time and location to be Mechanism (YEKDEM) judgment in The Stanley Works
determined.15 Parties should confirm by 4. Investment Incentive Certificates (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd.
telephone the date, time, and location of 5. Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR v. United States, sustaining the final
the hearing. B. Programs Preliminarily Determined To
Not Be Countervailable results of remand redetermination
Parties are reminded that briefs and pertaining to the first administrative
hearing requests are to be filed 1. Payments from the Turkish Employers’
Association of Metal Industries review of the antidumping duty order
electronically using ACCESS and (MESS)—Social Security Premium on certain steel nails from the People’s
received successfully in their entirety by Support Republic of China (China), covering the
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 2. Payments from MESS—Occupational period of review (POR) of January 23,
Health and Safety Support 2008 through July 31, 2009. The
11 See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 3. Preferential Financing From the
12 See Industrial Development Bank of Turkey
Department of Commerce (Commerce) is
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii); 351.309(d)(1); and
19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). (TSKB) notifying the public that the final
13 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and 351.309(d)(2). 4. Minimum Wage Support judgment in this case is not in harmony
14 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). C. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not with Commerce’s final results of the
15 See 19 CFR 351.310. To Confer Countervailable Benefits first administrative review or the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Dec 07, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM 10DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_63710/page/1.svg)
![63478 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Notices
Commerce is also amending the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00,
Amended Final Results 2008–2009 with 7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the
respect to CPI. In particular, Commerce International Trade Administration Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
is amending its previous rescission of [A–469–805] United States (HTSUS). While the
the administrative review and is no HTSUS subheadings are provided for
longer rescinding the review with Stainless Steel Bar From Spain: convenience and customs purposes, the
respect to CPI but, instead, is issuing Preliminary Results of Antidumping written description is dispositive. A full
final results of review with respect to Duty Administrative Review; 2017– description of the scope of the order is
CPI. Moreover, Commerce intends to 2018 contained in the Preliminary Decision
issue instructions to CBP to liquidate Memorandum.4
entries entered under CPI’s 23 AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration, Methodology
combination rates as follows. For the 10
combination rates that CPI does not Department of Commerce. Commerce is conducting this review
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of
acknowledge using, Commerce intends
to instruct CBP to liquidate entries (Commerce) preliminarily finds that the Act. Constructed export price and
under those 10 combination rates at the Sidenor Aceros Especiales S.L. export price were calculated in
China-wide rate of 118.04 percent (Sidenor), the sole exporter subject to accordance with section 772 of the Act.
because the record evidence this administrative review has made Normal value was calculated in
demonstrates that none of the sales of subject merchandise at less than accordance with section 773 of the Act.
companies associated with these 10 normal value during the period of For a full description of the
combination rates made the relevant review (POR) March 1, 2017, through methodology underlying our
export sale. For the 10 combination August 8, 2017. We invite interested conclusions, see Preliminary Decision
rates that CPI does acknowledge using parties to comment on these preliminary Memorandum. The Preliminary
and for which each producer had results. Decision Memorandum is a public
knowledge the merchandise was DATES: Applicable December 10, 2018. document and is made available to the
destined for the United States, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: public via Enforcement and
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to Trenton Duncan or Kabir Archuletta, Compliance’s Antidumping and
liquidate entries under those 10 AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Countervailing Duty Centralized
combination rates at the separate rate of Enforcement and Compliance, Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
15.43 percent, determined for each International Trade Administration, ACCESS is available to registered users
respective producer during the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 at http://access.trade.gov and to all
administrative review. For the Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, parties in Commerce’s Central Records
remaining three combination rates, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5260 or Unit, located at room B8024 of the main
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to (202) 482–2593, respectively. Department of Commerce building. In
liquidate such entries at the rate in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: addition, a complete version of the
effect at the time of entry, because the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can
Background be found at http://
three producers at issue were not
included in the final results of the Commerce is conducting an enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.
administrative review. administrative review of the A list of the topics discussed in the
In the event that the CIT’s ruling is antidumping duty order on stainless Preliminary Decision Memorandum is
not appealed, or, if appealed, is upheld steel sar (SSB) from Spain, in attached at the Appendix to this notice.
by a final and conclusive court decision, accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Preliminary Results of Review
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties in accordance with Act).1 The review covers one producer/ As a result of this review, we
the above. exporter of the subject merchandise, preliminarily determine that the
Sidenor. When the review was initiated, following weighted-average dumping
Cash Deposit Requirements the period of review (POR) was March margin exists for Sidenor for the period
The cash deposit rates for Stanley and 1, 2017, through Febrary 28, 2018. March 1, 2017, through August 8, 2017.
the 22 Separate Rate Companies have However, on October 3, 2018, as a result
changed as a result of subsequent of a five-year (sunset) review, Commerce Weighted-
revoked the antidumping duty order on average
administrative reviews. Therefore, this Producer/exporter dumping
amended final results does not change imports of stainless steel bar (SSB) from margin
the later-established cash deposit rates Spain, effective August 9, 2017.2 As a (percent)
for these companies. result, the POR was revised to March 1,
2017, through August 8, 2017.3 Sidenor Aceros Especiales, S.L. 1.76
Notification to Interested Parties
Scope of the Order Disclosure
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), The merchandise subject to the order We intend to disclose the calculations
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. is SSB. The SSB subject to the order is performed to parties in this proceeding
currently classifiable under subheadings within five days after public
Dated: December 3, 2018.
Gary Taverman, 1 See Amended Final Determination and
announcement of the preliminary
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar From results.5
and Countervailing Duty Operations, Spain, 60 FR 11656 (March 2, 1995) (Order).
2 See Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, 4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for and Spain: Continuation of Antidumping Duty the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Enforcement and Compliance. Order (India) and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from
Orders (Brazil, Japan, and Spain), 83 FR 49910 Spain; 2017–2018,’’ dated concurrently with this
[FR Doc. 2018–26653 Filed 12–7–18; 8:45 am] (October 3, 2018) (Revocation Notice). notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 3 Id. 5 See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:10 Dec 07, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM 10DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_63710/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-12-08 00:22:25
Document Modified: 2018-12-08 00:22:25
| 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 15, 2018. | |
| Contact | Paul Walker, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0413. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 63474 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR