Notice2022-11338
Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results, Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Review
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 26, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On May 13, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the Court) issued a final judgment in Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v. United States, Court No. 19-00099, Slip. Op. 21-46 (Hyundai II), sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) redetermination pursuant to the remand pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cold-rolled steel flat products from the Republic of Korea. Commerce is notifying the public that the Court's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative review, published on May 24, 2019. Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the weighted- average dumping margin assigned to Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) and has rescinded its review of one non-examined company.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31983-31984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11338]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-881]
Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results,
Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Review
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 13, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the
Court) issued a final judgment in Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v. United
States, Court No. 19-00099, Slip. Op. 21-46 (Hyundai II), sustaining
the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) redetermination pursuant
to the remand pertaining to the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain cold-rolled steel flat products from
the Republic of Korea. Commerce is notifying the public that the
Court's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's
final results of the administrative review, published on May 24, 2019.
Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the weighted-
average dumping margin assigned to Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai
Steel) and has rescinded its review of one non-examined company.
DATES: Applicable May 13, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney, 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) 482-4475.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the Final Results,\1\ Commerce identified discrepancies between
product codes and product specifications reported by Hyundai Steel for
certain sales.\2\ As a result, Commerce determined that Hyundai Steel
had provided inconsistent product specification data for observations
of certain U.S. sales within various control numbers.\3\ Because of the
inconsistent product specification information, Commerce also
determined that it could not confirm that Hyundai Steel accurately
reported control number fields for the sales corresponding with the
observations in question and all other sales of the same control
number. As a result, Commerce was unable to match the control numbers
of the affected U.S. sales to the appropriate control numbers in the
Korean home market.\4\ Accordingly, in the Preliminary Results and
Final Results, Commerce relied on facts available with an adverse
inference (AFA) by applying the highest transaction-specific margin to
the inconsistent sales observations of the affected control numbers
created by Hyundai Steel.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2016-2017, 84 FR 24083 (May 24, 2019) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ Id. at Comment 2.
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Certain Cold Rolled Steel
Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Hyundai Steel Company,''
dated October 3, 2018 (Hyundai Steel Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum), at 5-6.
\4\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 2.
\5\ Id.; see also Hyundai Steel Preliminary Analysis Memorandum
at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Hyundai I, the Court remanded Commerce's reliance on AFA.\6\ The
Court held that the relevant statement in Commerce's June 18, 2018
supplemental questionnaire was ``broadly drawn'' and did not satisfy
the notice requirement under section 782(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), because Commerce ``failed to identify the nature
of the alleged `deficiency' in {Hyundai Steel's{time} response with
any specificity.'' \7\ Further the Court explained that the word
``accuracy'' in the supplemental questionnaire did not alert Hyundai
Steel that its specification data were deficient.\8\ The Court also
rejected the argument that Commerce's reliance on facts available in
the immediately preceding investigation justified its use of facts
available in the instant review.\9\ Therefore, the Court ordered
Commerce to identify the sales and control numbers containing a
discrepancy between the product code and product specifications, to
clearly describe the nature of the deficiency, to provide Hyundai Steel
with an opportunity to remedy the deficiency, and to reconsider whether
facts available is warranted.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v. United States, 518 F. Supp.
3d 1309, 1324-28, 1333 (CIT 2021) (Hyundai I).
\7\ Id., 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1326.
\8\ Id., 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1326-27.
\9\ Id., 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1327 (citing Hyundai Steel Co. v.
United States, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1327 (CIT 2018); and Hyundai Steel
Co. v. United States, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (CIT 2019)).
\10\ Id. at 1328, 1333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Hyundai I, on June 2, 2021, we issued a supplemental
questionnaire concerning Hyundai Steel's U.S. sales of products falling
within the control
[[Page 31984]]
numbers in question.\11\ On June 16, 2021, Hyundai Steel filed its
response to our supplemental questionnaire.\12\ Based on Hyundai
Steel's response to Commerce's Remand Supplemental Questionnaire,
Commerce accepted the methodology that Hyundai Steel employed to report
its sales by control number and no longer relied on AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Request for Additional
Information: Hyundai Steel v. United States Slip Op. 21-47, Court No
19-00099,'' dated June 2, 2021 (Remand Supplemental Questionnaire).
\12\ See Hyundai Steel's Letter, ``Remand Order of the United
States Court of International Trade in Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v.
United States (Court No. 19-00099): Hyundai Steel Company's
Supplemental Questionnaire Response,'' dated June 16, 2021 (Hyundai
Steel Remand Supplemental Response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in the underlying administrative review, the
petitioners \13\ requested a review of 16 companies, including
``Company A,'' an affiliate of Hyundai Steel.\14\ Although the
petitioners filed a timely withdrawal of their review request for
certain companies, the petitioners did not include Company A in their
withdrawal request.\15\ In the Preliminary Results, Commerce assigned
the all-others rate to Company A.\16\ Subsequently, in a case brief,
U.S. Steel for the first time requested that Commerce either rescind
its review of Company A or collapse Company A with Hyundai Steel.\17\
The petitioners' request to withdraw the review for Company A was filed
after the 90-day deadline established in 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). In the
Final Results, Commerce continued to apply the all-others rate to
Company A, and we declined to rescind its review or to collapse the
company with Hyundai Steel.\18\ Commerce did, however, determine that
Company A was neither a producer nor an exporter of subject
merchandise.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The petitioners in this proceeding are ArcelorMittal USA
LLC; AK Steel Corporation; Nucor Corporation; Steel Dynamics, Inc.;
and United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) (collectively,
petitioners).
\14\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea--Petitioners' Request for Administrative
Review,'' dated October 2, 2017. Company A is identified on the
record. See Petitioners' Letter, ``Case Brief to United States Steel
Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA, Nucor Corporation, and AK Steel
Corporation,'' dated November 20, 2018 (Petitioners' Case Brief);
and Hyundai Steel's Letter, ``Rebuttal Brief of Hyundai Steel
Company,'' dated November 28, 2018.
\15\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea--Petitioners' Partial Withdrawal of
Administrative Review Request,'' dated February 14, 2018.
\16\ See Certain Cold Rolled Steel Flat Products from the
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review; 2016-2017,
83 FR 51661, 51662 (October 12, 2018) (Preliminary Results).
\17\ See Petitioners' Case Brief at 2-7.
\18\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 8.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Hyundai I, the Court sustained Commerce's determination that the
petitioners' request to rescind review of Company A was untimely.\20\
The Court held that U.S. Steel failed to request an extension and did
not satisfy the prerequisites for asking that Commerce rescind its
review.\21\ Nevertheless, the Court concluded that ``assigning the all-
others rate to a non-producer or exporter violated the {Act{time} .''
\22\ Specifically, although the petitioners had earlier identified
Company A as an exporter or producer of subject merchandise, once
Commerce determined that Company A was neither, the Court explained
that Commerce ``need not have waited for U.S. Steel to ask for
rescission to find that it could not determine a rate for Company A.''
\23\ The Court further determined that the Act ``does not empower
Commerce to assign a rate to a freight company.'' \24\ Thus, the Court
determined that U.S. Steel's untimely rescission request was not
consequential. Based on the foregoing, the Court directed Commerce to
rescind its review with respect to Company A.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Hyundai I, 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1331.
\21\ Id.
\22\ Id.
\23\ Id., 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1332.
\24\ Id.
\25\ Id., 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 24, 2021, Commerce filed its Redetermination.\26\ In
the Redetermination, Commerce: (1) Accepted the control number
reporting employed by Hyundai Steel and no longer relied on facts
available with or without an adverse inference for transactions that
Commerce had previously assigned AFA; and (2) rescinded review of
Company A.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Hyundai Steel Co., et al. v. United States, Court No.
19-00099, Slip. Op. 21-47 (CIT April 27, 2021), Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated September 24, 2021
(Redetermination).
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 13, 2022, the Court sustained Commerce's Redetermination,
and entered a final judgment.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v. United States, Court No.
19-00099, Slip. Op. 22-46 (CIT May 13, 2022) (Hyundai II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\29\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\30\ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held
that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a
notice of a court decision not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a
``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's May 13, 2022 judgment
sustaining the Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the
Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. This notice
is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken.
Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of
the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal
or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
\30\ 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 decision, Commerce is amending
the Final Results with respect to Hyundai Steel for the period March 7,
2016, through August 31, 2017. Commerce is also rescinding its review
of Company A. The revised rate for Hyundai Steel is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted
average
Producer/exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Steel........................................... 1.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because Commerce has issued results for Hyundai Steel for periods
subsequent to the instant March 7, 2016, through August 31, 2017 period
of review,\31\ the cash deposit rate for Hyundai Steel is unchanged as
a result of this Timken Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2019-2020, 87 FR 15371 (March 18, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516(A)(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 20, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-11338 Filed 5-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 26, 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.