Notice2022-10077
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Taiwan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of 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
May 11, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On April 28, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Power Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court no. 20-03771, sustaining the Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s first remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on steel concrete reinforced bar (rebar) from Taiwan covering the period March 7, 2017, through September 30, 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 margin assigned to Power Steel Co., Ltd. (Power Steel).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28807-28808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10077]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-859]
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Taiwan: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 28, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)
issued its final judgment in Power Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States,
Court no. 20-03771, sustaining the Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s
first remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the
antidumping duty (AD) order on steel concrete reinforced bar (rebar)
from Taiwan covering the period March 7, 2017, through September 30,
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 margin assigned to Power Steel Co., Ltd. (Power Steel).
DATES: Applicable May 8, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacob Saude, AD/CVD Operations, Office
VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0981.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 8, 2020, Commerce published its final results in the
2017-2018 AD administrative review of rebar from Taiwan.\1\ In the
Final Results, Commerce deducted section 232 duties from export price
for all of Power Steel's transactions because Commerce found that the
documents Power Steel submitted did not support its claim that section
232 duties were not included in U.S. price for certain transactions.\2\
Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 3.27
percent.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Taiwan: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018, 85 FR
63505 (October 8, 2020) (Final Results).
\2\ Id.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Steel appealed Commerce's Final Results. On December 23,
2021, the CIT sustained, in part, and remanded, in part, aspects of the
Final Results.\4\ The CIT sustained Commerce's interpretation that
section 232 duties are ``United States import duties'' that are
deducted from export price under section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act). The CIT remanded Commerce's
determination that Power Steel paid section 232 duties for all its U.S.
sales.\5\ The CIT found the evidence Power Steel submitted during the
administrative review ``appears to be ambiguous if considered in a
vacuum'' and further found that certain information Power Steel
submitted to the CIT, some of which was not previously on Commerce's
record, ``may show that Power Steel did not pay the
[[Page 28808]]
{s{time} ection 232 duties for the disputed transactions and that
therefore they were not part of the sales price used to establish base
{export price{time} .'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Power Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 20-
03771, Slip. Op. 21-173 (CIT December 23, 2021).
\5\ Id. at 6-7.
\6\ Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final remand redetermination, issued on April 8, 2022,
Commerce found that the record supported Power Steel's claim that it
did not pay section 232 duties on two of its U.S. sales, and thus, that
section 232 duties were not included in the gross unit price that was
used as the basis for export price. Commerce recalculated the weighted-
average dumping margin for Power Steel, which changed from 3.27 percent
in the Final Results to 0.01 percent.\7\ Thus, Commerce found that
Power Steel did not make sales at less than normal value during the
period of review. The CIT sustained Commerce's final
redetermination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Final Results of Remand Redetermination, Power Steel
Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 20-03771, Slip. Op. 21-173,
dated April 8, 2022, (Final Results of Remand Redetermination).
\8\ See Power Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 20-
3771, Slip. Op. 22-39 (CIT April 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\9\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\10\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that,
pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of 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 April 28, 2022, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\10\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 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
its Final Results with respect to Power Steel as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final results of remand
Company Final results (percent) redetermination
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Steel Co., Ltd........................................ 3.27 * 0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (de minimis).
Cash Deposit Requirements
Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries that: Were produced and/or exported by Power Steel,
and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during
the period March 7, 2017, through September 30, 2018, excluding the
period September 3, 2017, through September 14, 2017. 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 Power Steel in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). 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.\11\ Where an import-specific ad valorem assessment rate is
zero or de minimis,\12\ we will instruct CBP to liquidate the
appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: May 5, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-10077 Filed 5-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 11, 2022.
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.