Notice2024-14029
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan and the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Sunset Reviews, Reinstatement of Antidumping Duty Orders, and Reconduction of Sunset Reviews
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 26, 2024
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On May 28, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Archroma U.S., Inc., v. United States et al., Court No. 22-00354, finding that the regulatory provision upon which the U.S. Department of Commerce relied to revoke the antidumping duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (China) violates section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and ordering the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) to: accept the domestic interested party Archroma U.S., Inc.'s (Archroma) substantive response; and conduct a full sunset reviews of these orders. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the sunset reviews, and that Commerce intends to: reinstate the antidumping duty orders on OBAs from Taiwan and China; accept Archroma's substantive response; and conduct full sunset reviews of these orders under section 751(c)(1) and (d)(2) of the Act. Commerce will begin reconducting the sunset reviews on July 1, 2024.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53392-53393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14029]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-848, A-570-972]
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan and the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the
Results of Antidumping Sunset Reviews, Reinstatement of Antidumping
Duty Orders, and Reconduction of Sunset Reviews
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 28, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)
issued its final judgment in Archroma U.S., Inc., v. United States et
al., Court No. 22-00354, finding that the regulatory provision upon
which the U.S. Department of Commerce relied to revoke the antidumping
duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan
and the People's Republic of China (China) violates section 751(c) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and ordering the U.S.
Department of Commerce (Commerce) to: accept the domestic interested
party Archroma U.S., Inc.'s (Archroma) substantive response; and
conduct a full sunset reviews of these orders. Commerce is notifying
the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with
Commerce's final results of the sunset reviews, and that Commerce
intends to: reinstate the antidumping duty orders on OBAs from Taiwan
and China; accept Archroma's substantive response; and conduct full
sunset reviews of these orders under section 751(c)(1) and (d)(2) of
the Act. Commerce will begin reconducting the sunset reviews on July 1,
2024.
DATES: Applicable June 7, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Weiner, 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) 482-3902.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 10, 2012, Commerce published the antidumping duty orders on
OBAs from Taiwan and China in the Federal Register.\1\ On October 3,
2022, Commerce initiated the sunset reviews of the Orders.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from
Taiwan: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27419 (May 10, 2012); and Certain
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of
China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27423 (May 10, 2012)
(collectively, Orders).
\2\ See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 87 FR 59779
(October 3, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d), the publication of a sunset review
notice of initiation in the Federal Register establishes two deadlines:
a 15-day notice of intent to participate; and a 30-day submission of
``complete substantive responses.'' On October 24, 2022, six days after
the 15-day deadline (i.e., October 18, 2022), Archroma submitted its
notice of intent to participate in the sunset reviews of the Orders;
Archroma submitted its substantive response by the requisite deadline.
Consequently, Commerce rejected Archroma's notice of intent to
participate because it was untimely, and consequently rejected
Archroma's substantive response as unsolicited due to Archroma's
failure to submit a timely notice of intent to participate.\3\ Despite
Archroma's subsequent requests for reconsideration,\4\ Commerce made no
change to its decisions in this regard.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Five-Year (``Sunset'') Review of
the Antidumping Duty Orders on Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents
from China and Taiwan: Rejection of Notice of Intent to
Participate,'' dated October 28, 2022; see also Memorandum,
``Rejection of Certain Documents in ACCESS,'' dated November 9,
2022.
\4\ See Archroma's Letters, ``Request for Reconsideration,''
dated November 11, 2022; and ``Supplemental Request for
Reconsideration,'' dated November 17, 2022.
\5\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Rejection of Request for
Reconsideration,'' dated November 30, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 29, 2022, Commerce issued its final results in the
sunset reviews of the Orders.\6\ Because no domestic interested party
responded to Commerce's notice of initiation by the applicable
deadline, Commerce revoked the Orders consistent with section
751(c)(3)(A) of the Act.\7\ Archroma subsequently challenged Commerce's
Final Results at the CIT on that same day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from People's
Republic of China and Taiwan: Final Results of Sunset Reviews and
Revocation of Order, 87 FR 80162 (December 29, 2022) (Final
Results).
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT held that Commerce could not lawfully revoke the Orders
solely due to a domestic interested party's untimely filing of a notice
of intent to participate.\8\ The CIT elaborated that section 751(c) of
the Act allows for Commerce to revoke an order only if no domestic
interested party provides an ``answer to a solicitation for the
substantive content that {section
[[Page 53393]]
751(c)(2) of the Act{time} instructs the agency to seek.'' \9\
According to the CIT, because Archroma's timely substantive response
satisfied the request for substantive material pursuant to section
751(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the agency was obligated to conduct the sunset
reviews of the Orders.\10\ Additionally, the CIT held that Commerce's
regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1), which sets the 15-day procedural
deadline for a notice of intent to participate, violates section
751(c)(2)-(3) of the Act, because it removes from domestic interested
parties the statutory right to submit substantive information in a
sunset review if, as here, a timely notice of intent is not filed.\11\
Consequently, the CIT issued a declaratory judgment and injunction,
ordering Commerce to accept Archroma's substantive response, and
conduct full sunset reviews of the Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Archroma U.S., Inc., v. United States et al., Court No.
22-00354, Slip Op. 24-61 (CIT May 28, 2024).
\9\ Id. at 16.
\10\ Id. at 18.
\11\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 section 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must
publish a notice of court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with an
agency determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's May 28, 2024, judgment
constitutes a final decision 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinstatement of Antidumping Duty Orders
Pursuant to the CIT's May 28, 2024, final decision, Commerce is
reinstating the Orders.
Reconduction of Sunset Reviews
Through this notice, we are notifying the public that Commerce is
reconducting its sunset reviews of the Orders in accordance with the
CIT's judgment. Commerce will begin reconducting the sunset review on
July 1, 2024, to coordinate with the U.S. International Trade
Commission's sunset reviews, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries of OBAs China and Taiwan that are or were entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after November 27,
2022. 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 U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on
unliquidated entries of OBAs China and Taiwan that are or were entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after November 27,
2022, as appropriate.
Cash Deposit Rates
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order to require
cash deposits at a rate of zero percent for entries of OBAs from China
and Taiwan that are or were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after November 27, 2022. Upon a final and conclusive
court decision in the litigation, Commerce intends to issue revised
cash deposit instructions to CBP as appropriate.
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 20, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-14029 Filed 6-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 26, 2024.
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.