Notice2025-13389
Aluminum Extrusions From China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping 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
July 17, 2025
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On July 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Kingtom Aluminio, S.R.L., et al v. United States, Consol. Court No. 22-00072, sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s first remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period of review (POR) May 1, 2019, through April 30, 2020. 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 Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. (Kingtom).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 135 (Thursday, July 17, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 135 (Thursday, July 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33368-33369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13389]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-967]
Aluminum Extrusions From China: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice
of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)
issued its final judgment in Kingtom Aluminio, S.R.L., et al v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 22-00072, sustaining the U.S. Department of
Commerce (Commerce)'s first remand results pertaining to the
administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on aluminum
extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the
period of review (POR) May 1, 2019, through April 30, 2020. 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 Kingtom Aluminio
S.R.L. (Kingtom).
DATES: Applicable July 19, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hedberg, 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) 482-0955.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 8, 2022, Commerce published its Final Results in the
2019-2020 AD administrative review of aluminum extrusions from
China.\1\ In the Final Results, Commerce rejected Kingtom's claim that
it had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR.\2\
Specifically, Commerce found that Kingtom did have entries of subject
merchandise during the POR because U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) had recategorized Kingtom's entries as type 03 (i.e., entry for
consumption subject to AD/CVD duties) based upon its determination of
evasion.\3\ Commerce made it clear in both the Preliminary Results and
the Final Results that treatment of the entries under review as type 03
was made to be consistent with CBP's determinations of evasion and the
resultant recategorization of Kingtom's entries.\4\ As such, Commerce
found that Kingtom did not provide the required evidence of a sale of
subject merchandise in its separate rate application and, therefore,
that it did not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate.\5\
Accordingly, Commerce applied to Kingtom the weighted-average dumping
margin assigned to the China-wide entity.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019-2020,
87 FR 7098 (February 8, 2022) (Final Results), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ Id.
\3\ See Final Results IDM at 9-12.
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kingtom appealed Commerce's Final Results. On August 1, 2022, the
CIT granted Commerce's request to stay Kingtom's appeal pending the
outcome of remand proceedings in the two cases involving the EAPA
determinations, Global Aluminum and H&E Home.\7\ On November 6, 2024,
the CIT granted Commerce's request for a voluntary remand of the Final
Results.\8\ In its Request for Voluntary Remand, Commerce cited the
CIT's decisions sustaining CBP's determinations to reverse its
affirmative evasion finding with respect to Kingtom.\9\ The CIT granted
Commerce's request to reconsider its Final Results in light of the
remand results in Global Aluminum and H&E Home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., et al v. United States, Court
No. 22-00072, ECF No. 33 (August 1, 2022) (citing Global Aluminum
Distrib. LLC v. United States, 585 F.Supp.3d 1338 (CIT 2022) (Global
Aluminum); and H&E Home, Inc. v. United States, 714 F.Supp.3d 1353
(CIT 2024) (H&E Home).
\8\ See Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., et al. v. United States, Court
No. 22-00072, ECF No. 49 (November 6, 2024) (Remand Order).
\9\ See Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., et al v. United States, Court
No. 22-00072, ECF No. 48 (October 18, 2024) (Request for Voluntary
Remand) (citing Global Aluminum and H&E Home).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final remand redetermination, issued March 5, 2025, Commerce
reviewed its Final Results in light of Global Aluminum and H&E
Home,\10\ accepting Kingtom's certification of no shipments \11\ and
determining that Kingtom had no dutiable entries to the United States
during the POR. The CIT sustained Commerce's final remand
redetermination.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Kingtom Aluminio, S.R.L., et al v. United States, Court No.
22-00072, dated March 5, 2025 (Final Redetermination).
\11\ See Kingtom's Letter, ``Certification of No Sales,
Shipments, or Entries,'' dated August 10, 2020.
\12\ See Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., et al v. United States, Court
No. 22-00072, Slip Op. 25-86 (July 9, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\13\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\14\ the U.S. 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 July 9, 2025, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\14\ 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 Kingtom as follows: (1) we are
accepting Kingtom's no shipments certification and making a final
determination of no shipments with respect to Kingtom, and (2) because
there are no reviewable entries
[[Page 33369]]
during the POR by Kingtom, we are rescinding the 2019-2020
administrative review with respect to Kingtom.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Kingtom did not receive a separate rate in a prior segment of this
proceeding, and because we find that Kingtom had no shipments during
the POR, we have not revised the cash deposit rate for Kingtom. As
such, the China-wide entity rate of 86.01 percent continues to apply to
Kingtom as a Chinese exporter.\15\ Accordingly, Commerce will not issue
revised cash deposit instructions to CBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Kingtom does not have a superseding cash deposit rate,
i.e., there have been no final results published in a subsequent
administrative review of the AD order on aluminum extrusions from
China in which Kingtom was under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries that: were produced and/or exported by Kingtom, and
were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the
period May 1, 2019 through April 30, 2020. 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 CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of
subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Kingtom in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the
importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis.
Where an import-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de
minimis,\16\ we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries
without regard to antidumping duties. Consistent with Commerce's
assessment practice in non-market economy cases, where we have
determined that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject
merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under the exporter's
case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the
China-wide rate.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
\17\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011); see also
Final Results, 87 FR at 7099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: July 11, 2025.
Christopher Abbott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2025-13389 Filed 7-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 17, 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.