[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37320-37321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16067]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-810]


Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From the Republic of Korea: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Amended Final Results

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 26, 2011, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) 
results of redetermination as applied to respondent SeAH Steel 
Corporation (SeAH) pursuant to the CIT's remand order in SeAH Steel 
Corporation v. United States and Bristol Metals, Slip Op. 11-33 (March 
29, 2011) (SeAH II). SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, Court No. 
09-00248 (Ct. Int'l Trade May 26, 2011) (SeAH III) (affirming the 
Department's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, Court 
No. 09-00248, dated April 26, 2011, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands). Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 
893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 612 F.3d. 1348 (Fed. Cir. 
2010) (Diamond Sawblades), the Department is notifying the public that 
the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's 
Final Results and is amending the final results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded stainless steel 
pipes from the Republic of Korea covering the period of review (POR) of 
December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007 with respect to SeAH. See 
Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From the Republic of Korea: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 31242 (June 
30, 2009) (Final Results)

[[Page 37321]]

and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Milton Koch, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2371 or (202) 482-2584, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 30, 2009, the Department issued its final results in the 
antidumping duty review of certain welded stainless steel pipes from 
the Republic of Korea covering the POR of December 1, 2006, through 
November 30, 2007. See Final Results. SeAH challenged the following 
aspects of the Department's Final Results: (1) The decision to depart 
from its practice of using an annual cost averaging period and to 
instead rely on quarterly costs for the sales below cost test; (2) the 
decision not to apply its normal ``90/60'' day window period for 
comparing home market and U.S. sales; (3) the use of an adjusted 
weighted average annual cost recovery test that incorporated an 
indexing methodology; and (4) the application of the major input rule 
with regard to hot-rolled stainless steel coils purchased from a 
company affiliated with SeAH.
    In SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1353 
(Ct. Int'l Trade 2010), the CIT affirmed the Department's decisions to 
rely on quarterly average costs and to not apply the ``90/60'' day 
window in making price-to-price comparisons. The CIT granted the 
Department's request for a voluntary remand to consider steel 
specification data for the major input analysis and remanded to the 
Department for further explanation the adjusted weighted average annual 
cost recovery test that incorporated an indexing methodology.
    On September 17, 2010, the Department filed its first remand 
redetermination explaining its indexed cost recovery methodology in 
detail. The Department also determined in its remand redetermination 
that it was appropriate to consider SeAH's steel specification data in 
its major input analysis, and accordingly adjusted and recalculated the 
major input analysis conducted in the Final Results.
    On March 29, 2011, the CIT concluded in SeAH II that the adjusted 
cost recovery methodology which was employed by the Department in the 
Final Results and further explained in the first remand 
redetermination, was inconsistent with the text of the cost recovery 
statutory provision. The Court directed the Department to employ a cost 
recovery test using an unadjusted annual weighted average per unit cost 
of production. The CIT also affirmed the Department's use of the steel 
specification data in the first remand redetermination with respect to 
the Department's major input analysis.
    On April 26, 2011, the Department filed its second remand 
redetermination (Remand Results). In accordance with the Court's 
instructions, the Department recalculated SeAH's dumping margin by 
employing an unadjusted annual weighted average per unit cost of 
production for the POR in its cost recovery test.
    On May 26, 2011, the CIT sustained the Department's Remand Results 
in SeAH III. As a result of the two remand redeterminations, SeAH's 
antidumping margin changed from 9.05 percent to 6.01 percent.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a 
notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Department 
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's holding in SeAH III, 
sustaining the Department's Remand Results, constitutes a final 
decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's 
Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will 
continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise 
pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending 
a final and conclusive court decision. The cash deposit rate will 
remain the company-specific rate established for the subsequent and 
most recent period during which the respondents were reviewed. See 
Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From the Republic of Korea: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 27987 (May 19, 
2010).

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to SeAH, 
the dumping margin is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH)..............................         6.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, 
upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on entries of the 
subject merchandise during the POR from SeAH based on the revised 
assessment rates calculated by the Department.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

     Dated: June 20, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-16067 Filed 6-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P