SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 13, 2015, Commerce published its Final Determination in the LTFV investigation of WLP from Korea.^[1] Subsequently, on November 10, 2015, Commerce published its Amended Final Determination.^[2] On December 1, 2015, Commerce published the Order resulting from the investigation.^[3] As reflected in Commerce's Amended Final Determination and Order, Commerce calculated weighted-average dumping margins of 6.23 percent for Hyundai HYSCO, 2.53 percent for SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH), the other mandatory respondent in the investigation, and 4.38 percent for all others.^[4]

Hyundai HYSCO, SeAH, and the petitioners ^[5] appealed Commerce's Final Determination, as amended by the Amended Final Determination, and resulting Order to the CIT. On January 8, 2019, the CIT remanded for Commerce to explain or reconsider its decision to include certain “local sales” in Hyundai HYSCO's home market sales database.^[6] Separately, the CIT held that Commerce's rejection of Maverick's September 8, 2015 supplemental case brief constituted an abuse of discretion, and remanded for Commerce to review and determine which portions should be retained on the record.^[7] On May 2, 2019, Commerce issued the First Remand Results, in which it determined that Hyundai HYSCO knew, or should have known, that certain “local sales” included in its home market database would be exported without further processing in Korea.^[8] Accordingly, Commerce reclassified these sales and excluded them from the calculation of normal value (NV), which resulted in a recalculated weighted-average dumping margin of 6.22 percent for Hyundai HYSCO.^[9] In addition, Commerce reopened the administrative record to permit Maverick to place its September 8, 2015 supplemental case brief on the record in its entirety, and to permit other interested parties to submit rebuttal briefs in response to Maverick's supplemental case brief. Consistent with its practice to determine home market viability early in a proceeding, Commerce did not reconsider Hyundai HYSCO's home market viability.^[10]

The CIT, however, subsequently held that, by refusing to reassess the viability of HYSCO's home market, “Commerce failed to comply with its statutory and regulatory mandate to ensure the sufficiency of the home market as a basis for normal value.” ^[11] On that basis, it remanded to Commerce to further explain or reconsider Hyundai HYSCO's home market viability.^[12]

On January 14, 2020, Commerce issued the Second Remand Results in accordance with the CIT's order.^[13] On remand, Commerce provided further explanation regarding Hyundai HYSCO's home market viability. Specifically, Commerce explained that Hyundai HYSCO's home market sales quantity was sufficient to permit Commerce to make a proper comparison ( printed page 19438) between export price and NV, consistent with its statutory and regulatory mandates. On March 24, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce's Second Remand Results.^[14]

Timken Notice

In its decision in Timken,^[15] as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,^[16] the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision.^[17] The CIT's March 24 2020 judgment constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Determination, Amended Final Determination, and Order. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken and section 516A of the Act.

Amended Final Determination and Amended Order

Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending its Amended Final Determination and Order with respect to the weighted-average dumping margin for Hyundai HYSCO.^[18] The revised weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:

Cash Deposit Requirements

Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel), the successor company to Hyundai HYSCO,^[19] the cash deposit rate for Hyundai Steel will remain the rate established in the most recently-completed administrative review ( i.e., 29.89 percent).^[20]

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and (e), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

85 FR 19437