Notice2022-27331
Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of the 2016 Countervailing 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
December 16, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On December 8, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., v. United States, Court No. 19-00047, sustaining the Department of Commerce's (Commerce's) remand results pertaining to the 2016 administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (ribbons) from the People's Republic of China (China). 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 countervailable subsidy rate assigned to Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. (Yama).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 241 (Friday, December 16, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 241 (Friday, December 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77073-77074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-953]
Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final
Results of the 2016 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Notice
of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 8, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., v. United
States, Court No. 19-00047, sustaining the Department of Commerce's
(Commerce's) remand results pertaining to the 2016 administrative
review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on
[[Page 77074]]
narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (ribbons) from the People's
Republic of China (China). 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 countervailable subsidy rate assigned to
Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. (Yama).
DATES: Applicable December 18, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terre Keaton Stefanova, AD/CVD
Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1280.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 25, 2019, Commerce published its final results of the 2016
CVD administrative review of ribbons from China. \1\ In the Final
Results, Commerce assigned Yama an overall subsidy rate of 23.70
percent based, in part, on adverse facts available (AFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; 2016, 84 FR 11052 (March 25, 2019) (Final
Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yama appealed Commerce's Final Results. On April 30, 2021, the CIT
remanded to Commerce its Final Results findings that Yama used and
benefited from the Export Buyer's Credit program (EBCP) and the
Provision of Synthetic Yarn and Caustic Soda for Less-Than-Adequate
Remuneration (LTAR) and its inclusion of these subsidies in the overall
subsidy rate determined for Yama.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., LTD. vs. United States, 517
F.Supp.3d 1325 (CIT 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its remand redetermination issued in August 2021, Commerce
reconsidered its decision to apply AFA in evaluating use of the EBCP
and determined, under respectful protest, that the EBCP was not used by
Yama during the period of review (POR). Commerce also further
considered the information on the record and supplemented the record
regarding the synthetic yarn and caustic soda inputs for LTAR programs
and addressed the ``specificity'' requirement in the statute for them.
Upon further examination, Commerce found that: (1) the Provision of
Synthetic Yarn and Caustic Soda for LTAR programs met the specificity
requirement of the statute and, therefore, were countervailable
subsidies; and (2) Yama benefited from these programs during the POR.
Accordingly, Commerce calculated a revised subsidy rate for Yama of
13.16 percent.\3\ On December 8, 2022, the CIT sustained Commerce's
final redetermination.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Consol. Ct. No. 19-00047, Slip Op. 21-50 (August 13, 2021)
(Remand Results).
\4\ See Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. vs. United States,
Consol. Court No 19-00047, Slip Op. 22-138 (CIT December 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\5\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\6\
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to
section 516A(c) and (e) 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 December 8,
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\6\ 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 Yama as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
Company rate (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd............................. 13.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because Yama 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 Yama.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries that were produced and exported by Yama and were
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period
January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. 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, is
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to
instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of
subject merchandise produced and exported by Yama in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on
all appropriate entries covered by this review when the ad valorem rate
is not zero or de minimis. Where an ad valorem subsidy rate is zero or
de minimis,\7\ we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate
entries without regard to countervailing duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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: December 12, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-27331 Filed 12-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 16, 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.