Notice2022-19859
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2016-2017
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
September 14, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On September 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Ltd. et al. v. United States, 538 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (CIT 2021) (Saha Thai III), sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) second and final results of redetermination pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand covering the period of review (POR) March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017. 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 of review with respect to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited (Pacific Pipe), Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai), and Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd. (Thai Premium).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56400-56401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19859]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-502]
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review; 2016-2017
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company
Ltd. et al. v. United States, 538 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (CIT 2021) (Saha
Thai III), sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce)
second and final results of redetermination pertaining to the
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand covering
the period of review (POR) March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017.
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 of review with respect
to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Pacific Pipe Public
Company Limited (Pacific Pipe), Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company,
Ltd. (Saha Thai), and Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd. (Thai Premium).
DATES: Applicable September 27, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles DeFilippo, 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) 482-3797.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 15, 2018, Commerce published its Final Results of the
2016-2017 antidumping duty administrative review of pipes and tubes
from Thailand.\1\ In the Final Results, Commerce determined that a
particular market situation (PMS) existed in the Thai pipes and tubes
market related to purchases of hot-rolled coil during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2016-2017, 83 FR 51927 (October 15, 2018) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory respondents Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium
challenged Commerce's Final Results before the CIT. On December 18,
2019, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce for further
consideration, holding that the PMS adjustment was not in accordance
with law.\2\ Specifically, the CIT stated that, although section 773(e)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) ``grants Commerce
discretion to adjust a respondent's cost of production in an
antidumping margin calculation upon finding a particular market
situation, the margin calculation must be based on a comparison of U.S.
prices to constructed value, not home-market or third-country prices.''
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 422
F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1367-70, 1372 (CIT 2019).
\3\ Id., 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the First Redetermination issued in March 2020, Commerce
continued to find that a cost-based PMS existed in Thailand that
distorted the price of hot rolled coil.\4\ Also, in response to the
CIT's decision in Saha Thai II that, where Commerce determined a PMS
existed, the PMS adjustment is limited to situations where normal value
is based on constructed value, Commerce revised the margin calculations
by basing normal value entirely on constructed value, and it continued
to adjust each respondent's hot-rolled coil costs to account for the
cost-based PMS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court
No. 18-00214, Slip Op. 19-165, dated March 10, 2020 (First
Redetermination).
\5\ See First Redetermination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2020, the CIT again remanded the issue to Commerce,
holding that Commerce's First Redetermination was not in accordance
with law. The CIT ordered Commerce to ``remove the cost-based
{PMS{time} determinations and recalculate the relevant margins without
a {PMS{time} adjustment.'' \6\ The CIT held that nothing in the Act
grants Commerce ``authority to bypass the sales-below-cost test, and
the specificity of the { {time} test leaves no ambiguity.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 487
F. Supp. 3d 1323, 1331-35 (CIT 2020) (Saha Thai II).
\7\ Id., 487 F. Supp. 3d at 1331-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Second Redetermination, under protest, Commerce removed the
cost-based PMS adjustments, and based normal value on each respondent's
[[Page 56401]]
respective home market sale prices.\8\ Commerce also reasserted its
affirmative cost-based PMS determination and emphasized that ``the
clear intent of Congress'' was for Commerce to remedy a PMS, despite
its inability to provide such a remedy because of the CIT's order.\9\
On September 17, 2021, the CIT issued an opinion sustaining Commerce's
Second Redetermination.\10\ The CIT held that Commerce's continued PMS
finding in the Second Redetermination was moot because Commerce's
recalculation of the respondents' weighted-average dumping margins,
without a cost-based PMS adjustment, was consistent with the CIT's
order and the affirmative PMS determination would have no practical
significance.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, Court
No. 18-00214, Slip Op. 20-181, dated March 15, 2020 (Second
Redetermination).
\9\ Id. at 2-3.
\10\ See Saha Thai III.
\11\ Id., 538 F. Supp. 3d at 1353-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\12\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\13\ the U.S. 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 September 17, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\13\ 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 Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai
Premium. The revised dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final results
of review: Final results of
weighted- redetermination:
Exporter/producer average weighted-average
dumping dumping margin
margin (percent)
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited... 30.61 7.38
Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, 28.00 0.00
Ltd..................................
Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd......... 30.98 5.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium each have 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). These amended final results of review will not affect the
current cash deposit rates.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries that: were produced and exported by Pacific Pipe,
Saha Thai, and Thai Premium, and were entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption during the period March 1, 2016, through
February 28, 2017. These entries will remain enjoined unless the
injunction is lifted by the court, pursuant to the terms of the
injunction, during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event the CIT's ruling is upheld by a final and conclusive
court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review from Pacific
Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium when the importer-specific ad valorem
assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where either the
respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis
within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific ad
valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we intend to instruct
CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard antidumping
duties.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce's ``reseller policy'' will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In
such instances, 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,
68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: September 8, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-19859 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 14, 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.