[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60912-60913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-26939]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-421-807]


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The 
Netherlands: Notice of Final Court Decision and Suspension of 
Liquidation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Court Decision and Suspension of Liquidation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On September 29, 2003, in Corus Staal BV et al. v. United 
States III, Consol. Court No. 02-00003, Slip Op. 03-127 (CIT 2003), the 
United States Court of International Trade (the Court) affirmed the 
Department of Commerce's (the Department's) remand determination and 
entered a final judgment order in regards to Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands, 66 FR 50408 (October 
3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, as amended, 
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands, 66 
FR 55637 (November 2, 2001) and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands, 66 FR 59565 
(November 29, 2001). In its remand determination the Department 
explained its practice in calculating the provisional measures time 
period, i.e., explained its interpretation of the term ``6 months'' in 
section 733(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). 
See ``Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands,'' 
Consol. Court No. 02-00003, Slip Op. 03-25 (CIT 2003) (Final Results of 
Redetermination).
    As a result of the remand determination, the Department will amend 
the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products (hot-rolled steel) from the Netherlands to lift suspension of 
liquidation 180 days from the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination in the Federal Register. Because the preliminary 
determination was published on May 3, 2001, the amended antidumping 
duty order will indicate October 30, 2001 as the date of termination of 
suspension of liquidation in this case. In addition, as a result of the 
remand determination, the Department will inform the Bureau of Customs 
and Border Protection (Customs) to lift suspension of liquidation on 
October 30, 2001, and to resume collection of definitive duties on 
November 29, 2001, the date of publication of the antidumping duty 
order in the Federal Register.
    Consistent with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 
F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), the Department will continue to 
order the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise until 
there is a conclusive decision in this case. If this case is not 
appealed, or if it is affirmed on appeal, the Department will publish 
an amended antidumping duty order for hot-rolled steel from the 
Netherlands in accord with its redetermination, and instruct Customs to 
terminate the suspension of liquidation for the period October 30, 2001 
through November 28, 2001 and to resume collection of cash deposits on 
November 29, 2001.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott at (202) 482-2657 or 
Robert James at (202) 482-0649, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Enforcement Group III, Office Eight, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal 
Register its notice of final determination that sales of hot-rolled 
steel from the Netherlands were being sold at less than fair value 
(LTFV) in the United States, and on November 2, 2001 the Department 
published an amended final determination regarding the sale of hot-
rolled steel from the Netherlands at LTFV in the United States. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain 
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands, 66 FR 50408 
(October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, as 
amended, Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The 
Netherlands, 66 FR 55637 (November 2, 2001) (collectively, Final 
Determination). On November 15, 2001, the International Trade 
Commission (the Commission) published its final determination that an 
industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV 
imports of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands. See Hot Rolled Steel 
Products From China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, The Netherlands, 
Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine, 66 FR 57482 
(November 15, 2001). On November 29, 2001, the Department published the 
antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands. See 
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
From The Netherlands, 66 FR 59565 (November 29, 2001).
    Subsequent to the publication of the Department's antidumping duty 
order, the petitioners (National Steel Corporation, Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, and United States Steel Corporation) and the respondent 
(Corus Staal BV and Corus Steel USA Inc. (collectively, Corus)) 
challenged certain aspects of the Department's Final Determination 
before the Court. In addition, the Department requested a voluntary 
remand with respect to the inadvertent omission of the proper language 
from the antidumping duty order to cease collection of provisional 
measures six months after the publication of the preliminary 
determination, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act. 
Corus also raised this issue, but argued the Department had interpreted 
the six month provisional measures period as constituting 180 days, as 
opposed to six calendar months. This issue arose due to the following 
chain of events: In the underlying investigation, the Department 
published its preliminary determination on May 3, 2001. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

[[Page 60913]]

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands, 66 FR 22146 
(May 3, 2001). Following publication of the preliminary determination, 
Corus requested that the Department extend the deadline for the final 
determination, and in making this request, agreed to an extension of 
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months. However, the Department inadvertently excluded language from 
the antidumping duty order indicating it would lift suspension of 
liquidation (i.e., cease collection of provisional measures) six months 
after the date of the preliminary determination, consistent with 
section 733(d) of the Tariff Act.
    On March 7, 2003, the Court issued a remand order to the Department 
to revise its antidumping duty order to preclude collection of 
provisional measures beyond the six month period, and to also explain 
its practice of interpreting the provisional measures time period, 
i.e., in calendar months or the equivalent in six 30-day periods. See 
Corus Staal BV et al. v. United States I, Consol. Ct. No. 02-00003, 
Slip Op. 03-25 (March 7, 2003). The Department released its ``Draft 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand'' (Draft Results) on March 20, 
2003, noting that in cases subsequent to the final determination in the 
underlying investigation, the Department has followed the practice of 
interpreting six months to mean 180 days. See, e.g., Notice of Amended 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 
Duty Order: Antidumping Investigation of Low Enriched Uranium From 
France, 67 FR 6680 (February 13, 2002) and Notice of Antidumping Duty 
Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, 
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945, 65947 
(October 29, 2002). Because 180 days from the publication of the 
preliminary determination was October 30, 2001, the Department stated 
in its Draft Results that provisional measures should not have been 
collected after October 29, 2001 and therefore it would amend its 
instructions to Customs to lift suspension of liquidation on October 
30, 2001. The Department also clarified in its Draft Results that the 
appropriate date to resume collection of definitive duties, pursuant to 
section 737 of the Tariff Act, was the date when the Commission 
publishes a final injury determination, which in this case was November 
15, 2001. Therefore, the Department proposed instructing Customs to 
resume collection of cash deposits effective November 15, 2001. In 
response to the Department's Draft Results, Corus submitted comments on 
March 31, 2003, stating that while it agreed with the Department on the 
date of termination of suspension of liquidation, it disagreed with the 
Department on the date on which the collection of definitive duties was 
to resume. Instead, Corus argued, the collection of cash deposits 
should resume on the date of publication of the antidumping duty order, 
i.e., November 29, 2001.
    On April 7, 2003, the Department filed with the Court its Final 
Results of Redetermination, stating that upon approval by the Court it 
would issue an amended antidumping duty order and instructions to 
Customs including language lifting suspension of liquidation ``180 days 
from the publication of the preliminary determination until publication 
of the Commission's final affirmative determination.'' On August 12, 
2003, the Court sustained the portion of the Department's Final Results 
of Redetermination which stated that provisional measures should not 
have been collected more than 180 days after the preliminary 
determination. However, the Court ruled that the issue of the end date 
of the provisional measures time period could not be raised on remand. 
Thus, the Court ordered the Department to amend its remand 
determination to declare the date of publication of the antidumping 
duty order (i.e., November 29, 2001) to be the end date for the 
termination of suspension of liquidation in this case. See Corus Staal 
BV et al. v. United States II, Consol. Ct. No. 02-00003, Slip Op. 03-
101 (August 12, 2003). Pursuant to the Court's order in Corus Staal BV 
v. United States II, on September 2, 2003 the Department filed a 
revised final results of redetermination stating that consistent with 
the Court's order, the end date for the termination of suspension of 
liquidation in this case was November 29, 2001. The Department also 
indicated that upon issuance of a final and conclusive decision by the 
Court, it would publish an amended antidumping duty order and issue 
instructions to Customs to resume the collection of cash deposits 
effective November 29, 2001. See ``Final Results of Redetermination 
Pursuant to Second Court Remand: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the Netherlands,'' Consol. Court No. 02-00003, Slip Op. 
03-101 (CIT 2003). On September 29, 2003, the Court affirmed the 
Department's amended remand redetermination and entered a final 
judgment order with regards to the Final Determination. See Corus Staal 
BV et al. v. United States III, Consol. Court No. 02-00003, Slip Op. 
03-127 (CIT September 29, 2003). As there is now a final court decision 
with respect to this litigation, we are publishing this notice of final 
court decision affirming our remand redetermination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In Timken, the Federal Circuit held that the Department must 
publish notice of a decision made by the Court or the Federal Circuit 
which is not ``in harmony'' with the Department's final determination 
or final results. The Federal Circuit also held that the Department 
must suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise until there is a 
``conclusive'' decision in the case. Therefore, pursuant to Timken, the 
Department must continue to suspend liquidation for all subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
between October 30, 2001 and November 28, 2001, inclusive, pending the 
expiration of the period of appeal for Corus Staal BV v. United States 
III, or, if that decision is appealed, pending a final decision by the 
Federal Circuit. Upon expiration of the period of appeal or completion 
of any future litigation in this matter, the Department will issue 
instructions to Customs to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise 
made between October 30, 2001 and November 28, 2001, inclusive, without 
regard to antidumping duties (i.e., release all bonds and refund all 
cash deposits). The Department will also instruct Customs to resume 
collection, effective November 29, 2001, of a cash deposit equal to the 
estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins published in the 
Final Determination.

    Dated: October 20, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-26939 Filed 10-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P