Notice2021-12313
Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 11, 2021
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On June 2, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the CIT) issued its final judgment in Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United States, Court No. 19-00200, sustaining the Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India covering the period February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the dumping margins assigned to Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates Precision Metals, Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd., and Hindustan Inox Ltd. (collectively, the Venus Group), Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited (Jindal), and Laxcon Steels Limited (Laxcon).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31281-31282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12313]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A 533-810]
Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With the Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 2, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the
CIT) issued its final judgment in Carpenter Technology Corporation, et
al. v. United States, Court No. 19-00200, sustaining the Department of
Commerce (Commerce)'s remand results pertaining to the administrative
review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on stainless steel bar (SSB)
from India covering the period February 1, 2017 through January 31,
2018. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is
not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative
review, and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to
the dumping margins assigned to Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its
affiliates Precision Metals, Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
and Hindustan Inox Ltd. (collectively, the Venus Group), Jindal
Stainless (Hisar) Limited (Jindal), and Laxcon Steels Limited (Laxcon).
DATES: Applicable June 12, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla, 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) 482-3477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 21, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the
2017-2018 AD administrative review of SSB from India.\1\ In the Final
Results, we determined that the Venus Group is not the manufacturer of
the SSB that it purchased from unaffiliated suppliers and processed in
India prior to exportation to the United States.\2\ Because most of the
unaffiliated suppliers did not provide their costs, we applied partial
adverse facts available (AFA) with respect to the Venus Group.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order; 2017-2018, 84
FR 56179 (October 21, 2019) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 1.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners \4\ appealed Commerce's Final Results.\5\ On August
4, 2020, Commerce requested a voluntary remand to reconsider or further
explain the application of its partial AFA methodology to address
missing cost of production data from the Venus Group's unaffiliated
suppliers, the change in the partial AFA methodology between the
Preliminary Results \6\ and the Final Results, and, if appropriate, to
reconsider the appropriate AD rates assigned to Jindal and Laxcon.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The petitioners are: Carpenter Technology Corporation;
Crucible Industries LLC; Electralloy, a Division of G.O. Carlson,
Inc.; North American Stainless; Universal Stainless Alloy Product,
Inc.; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc.
\5\ See Plaintiff's Rule 56.2 Motion for Judgment upon the
Agency Record, in Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United
States, Court No. 19-00200 (filed May 5, 2020).
\6\ See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018, 84 FR 15582
(April 16, 2019) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary
Decision Memorandum (PDM).
\7\ See Government's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment
upon the Agency Record, in Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al.
v. United States, Court No. 19-00200 (filed August 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 4, 2020, the CIT granted Commerce's motion for a
voluntary remand finding that there was a compelling justification for
the remand request, that the need to accurately calculate margins was
not outweighed by the interest in finality, and that the scope of the
requested remand was appropriate.\8\ Specifically, the CIT remanded the
Final Results to Commerce to further explain or reconsider its partial
AFA methodology in the Final Results.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United
States, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (CIT 2020).
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Remand Redetermination, issued in January 2021,\10\ Commerce
further explained its revised partial AFA methodology, and made certain
corrections in the Venus Group's margin program. Specifically, Commerce
included all of the Venus Group's U.S. sales in its margin calculation;
matched sales and costs by manufacturer; and made AFA adjustments not
only to cost of production, but also other components of cost,
including variable cost of manufacture and fixed and variable
overhead.\11\ Accordingly, Commerce made changes to the margin
[[Page 31282]]
calculations for the Venus Group.\12\ Commerce also made changes to the
rates assigned to Jindal and Laxcon.\13\ The CIT sustained Commerce's
Remand Redetermination and also denied a motion to intervene that was
filed by Laxcon.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand,
Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United States, Court No.
19-00200, Slip Op. 20-158, dated January 27, 2021 (Remand
Redetermination).
\11\ Id. at 6 through 11.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Jindal's total AFA rate was based on one of the Venus
Group's highest transaction-specific margins. Because Commerce made
changes to the computer programs for the Venus Group, this resulted
in a change to the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for
the Venus Group, which was assigned as the revised total AFA rate
for Jindal. Laxcon, as a non-selected respondent, received the Venus
Group's revised rate on remand. See Remand Redetermination at 11-13.
\14\ See Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United
States, Court No. 19-00200, Slip Op. 21-68 (June 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(c) 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. The CIT's June 2,
2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in
harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published
in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\16\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending
the Final Results with respect to Venus Group, Jindal, and Laxcon as
follows: \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Final Remand Redetermination at 11-12.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer/exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates Precision 24.60
Metals, Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd., and
Hindustan Inox Ltd.........................................
Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited............................ 92.10
Laxcon Steels Limited....................................... 24.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Rates
Because the Venus Group has a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e.,
there have been final results published in a subsequent administrative
review, we will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This notice will not affect the
current cash deposit rate for Venus Group. For Jindal and Laxcon, which
do not have a superseding cash deposit rate, Commerce will issue
revised cash deposit instructions to CBP.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by the CIT order from
liquidating entries that: Were produced and/or exported by the Venus
Group, Jindal, or Laxcon, and were entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption during the period February 1, 2017, through
January 31, 2018. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the
terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed,
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of
subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the Venus Group,
Jindal, or Laxcon in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will
instruct CBP to apply the ad valorem assessment rates listed above to
all entries of subject merchandise during the period of review which
were produced and/or exported by Jindal and Laxcon. For the Venus
Group, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific
ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where an import-
specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis,\18\ we will
instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties. For entries of subject merchandise during the
period of review produced by the Venus Group for which it did not know
its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct
CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is
no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c) and (e), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 7, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-12313 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 11, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.