Notice2024-31587
Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks From Germany: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Countervailing Duty Order
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
January 3, 2025
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On December 26, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Court No. 21-00080, Slip Op. 24-148 (CIT December 26, 2024), sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) fourth remand redetermination pertaining to the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks (FEBs) from the Germany covering the period of investigation, January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final determination in that investigation, and that Commerce is amending the final determination and resulting CVD order with respect to the countervailable subsidy rates assigned to BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (BGH Siegen), Schmiedewerke Gr[ouml]ditz GmbH (SWG), voestalpine Bohler Group (voestalpine Bohler), and all others.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 2 (Friday, January 3, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 305-307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31587]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-428-848]
Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks From Germany: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of Countervailing
Duty Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended
Countervailing Duty Order
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 26, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United
States, Court No. 21-00080, Slip Op. 24-148 (CIT December 26, 2024),
sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) fourth remand
redetermination pertaining to the countervailing duty (CVD)
investigation of Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks (FEBs) from the Germany
covering the period of investigation, January 1, 2018, through December
31, 2018. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final
judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final determination in that
investigation, and that Commerce is amending the final determination
and resulting CVD order with respect to the countervailable subsidy
rates assigned to BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (BGH Siegen), Schmiedewerke
Gr[ouml]ditz GmbH (SWG), voestalpine Bohler Group (voestalpine Bohler),
and all others.
DATES: Applicable January 3, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer or Shane Subler, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068 or (202)
482-6241, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 11, 2020, Commerce published its final determination in
the CVD investigation of FEBs from Germany.\1\ Commerce calculated
countervailable subsidy rates of 5.86 percent for BGH Siegen, 6.71
percent for SWG, 14.81 percent for voestalpine Bohler, and 6.29 percent
for all other producers/exporters of FEBs in Germany.\2\ Commerce
subsequently published the CVD order on FEBs from Germany.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the Federal Republic
of Germany: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 85
FR 80011 (December 11, 2020) (Final Determination), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ Id., 85 FR at 80012.
\3\ See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the People's Republic
of China, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, and Italy:
Countervailing Duty Orders, and Amended Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination for the People's Republic of
China, 86 FR 7535 (January 29, 2021) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BGH Siegen appealed Commerce's Final Determination. On October 12,
2022, the CIT remanded the Final Determination to Commerce, directing
Commerce to: (1) consider in the first instance whether to account for
the compliance costs in its calculation of the CVD rates for subsidy
programs under the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax Act; and (2)
explain or reconsider its determination that the
Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) Program is a specific subsidy.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GMBH v. United States, 600
F.Supp.3d 1241 (CIT 2022) (First Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the First Remand Results, issued in January 2023, Commerce
explained its determination not to account for compliance costs in its
calculation of the CVD rates for programs under the Electricity Tax Act
and Energy Tax Act.\5\ Commerce also further explained its
determination that the KAV Program is specific.\6\ However, Commerce
made no changes to the final subsidy rates calculated during the
investigation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the First
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 21-00080; Slip. Op. 22-117 (CIT October 12, 2022), dated
January 9, 2023 (First Remand Results) at 18, available at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx">https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx</a>.
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Second Remand Order, the CIT sustained Commerce's First
Remand Results with respect to the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax
Act.\8\ However, with respect to the KAV Program, the CIT held that
Commerce's First Remand Results failed to explain: (1) how the amount
of electricity consumed or the electricity prices paid by companies are
not economic in nature; and (2) how criteria based solely on
electricity consumption and pricing are not horizontal in
application.\9\ Regarding the latter, the CIT explained that for the
KAV Program's criteria to be vertical in application, the criteria
would need to expressly limit the program's application to specifically
named enterprises or industries or a group of
[[Page 306]]
enterprises or industries.\10\ The CIT elaborated that the Government
of Germany's (GOG) eligibility criteria for the KAV Program did not
expressly limit the program's application to specific enterprises or
industries or groups of enterprises or industries.\11\ Accordingly, the
CIT, again, remanded for Commerce to further explain or reconsider its
determination.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 639
F.Supp.3d 1237, 1242 (CIT 2023) (Second Remand Order).
\9\ Id., 639 F.Supp.3d at 1243-44.
\10\ Id., 639 F.Supp.3d at 1244 (citing section 771(5A)(D)(i)
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)).
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Second Remand Results, Commerce found that the GOG's
eligibility criteria for the KAV Program were not horizontal in
application, and thus, not neutral, pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(ii)
of the Act.\13\ Commerce explained that ``where an authority, by law,
limits eligibility to a group of enterprises or industries (e.g., those
that operate specific types of `stationary equipment'), it cannot
{emphasis added{time} do so uniformly.'' \14\ Further, Commerce
explained that ``by expressly limiting eligibility to certain groups
that the authority, itself, defines, the authority has, in effect,
established criteria that are vertical in nature.'' \15\ On this basis,
Commerce found the eligibility criteria for the KAV Program to be
vertical in application.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Second
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 21-00080; Slip. Op. 23-71 (CIT May 9, 2023), dated August
7, 2023 (Second Remand Results) at 11, available at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx">https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx</a>.
\14\ Id. (citing Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada:
Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 2020, 87 FR 48455 (August 9, 2022), and
accompanying IDM at Comment 103).
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Third Remand Order, the CIT held that Commerce's position
that a subsidy is de jure specific where ``implementing legislation
expressly limit{s{time} access to the `group' that the legislation
itself created'' was contrary to law.\17\ The CIT elaborated that
``{t{time} he statute allows a subsidy to be limited to fewer than all
enterprises or industries in an economy, so long as that criteria
creating that legislation is objective.'' \18\ On this basis, the CIT
remanded for Commerce to further explain or reconsider its
determination that the KAV Program is de jure specific.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 663
F.Supp.3d 1378, 1384 (CIT 2023) (Third Remand Order).
\18\ Id. (citing Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994),
at 4242).
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Third Remand Results, Commerce reconsidered its
determination that the KAV Program is de jure specific.\20\ Commerce
found, under respectful protest, that the KAV Program is not de jure
specific pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.\21\
Consequently, Commerce determined that the KAV Program did not
constitute a countervailable subsidy.\22\ Commerce removed the KAV
Program from the overall subsidy rates for BGH Siegen, SWG, and
voestalpine Bohler, and recalculated the all-others rate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Third
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 663 F.
Supp. 3d 1378 (CIT 2023), dated February 12, 2024 (Third Remand
Results) at 9, available at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx">https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx</a>.
\21\ Id.; see also Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d
1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
\22\ See Third Remand Results at 9.
\23\ Id. at 9-10; see also Memorandum, ``Calculation of the Non-
Selected Rate,'' dated January 16, 2024 (All-Others Rate
Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Fourth Remand Order, the CIT remanded for Commerce to
further explain or reconsider its determination in the Third Remand
Results.\24\ Specifically, the CIT held that Commerce ``failed to
conduct a de facto specificity analysis despite there being reasons to
believe the KAV Program is specific as a matter of fact.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 704
F.Supp.3d 1372 (CIT 2024) (Fourth Remand Order).
\25\ Id., 704 F. Supp.3d at 1380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Fourth Remand Results, Commerce further explained its
determination that the KAV Program does not constitute a
countervailable subsidy because it is neither de jure nor de facto
specific.\26\ Commerce continued to find, based on facts otherwise
available in accordance with 776(a)(1) of the Act, that the KAV Program
does not constitute a countervailable subsidy.\27\ Commerce made no
changes to the final subsidy rates calculated in the Third Remand
Results.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Fourth
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 704 F.
Supp. 3d 1372 (CIT 2024), dated September 16, 2024 (Fourth Remand
Results), available at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx">https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx</a>.
\27\ Id. at 13.
\28\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 26, 2024, the CIT sustained Commerce's Fourth Remand
Results.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 21-00080, Slip Op. 24-148 (CIT December 26, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\30\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\31\ 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 December 26, 2024, judgment
constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with
Commerce's Final Determination. Thus, this notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\31\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Determination
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending
its Final Determination with respect BGH Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine
Bohler, and all others as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
rate
Company (percent
ad valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH.................................. 5.81
Schmiedewerke Gr[ouml]ditz GmbH............................ 6.64
voestalpine Bohler Group................................... 14.74
All Others................................................. 6.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended CVD Order
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending
its Final Determination and Order. As a result of this amended final
determination, Commerce is hereby revising the subsidy rates for BGH
Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine Bohler. Additionally, because the all-
others rate was based on BGH Siegen's and SWG's rates, Commerce is also
revising the all-others rate.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See All-Others Rate Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because BGH Siegen has a superseding cash deposit rate, this notice
will not affect the current cash deposit rate for BGH Siegen.\33\ For
all companies that do not have a superseding cash deposit rate,
Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from Germany: Final
Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2022, 89
FR 64875 (August 8, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 307]]
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 30, 2024.
Abdelali Elouaradia,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-31587 Filed 12-30-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 3, 2025.
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.