[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30271-30272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12223]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-423-808, A-791-805, C-791-806, A-583-830]


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, South Africa, and 
Taiwan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling 
and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

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

SUMMARY: On September 7, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision not in harmony with the 
final determination of the Department of Commerce (the Department) that 
stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium, South Africa, and 
Taiwan with a nominal thickness of 4.75 millimeters (mm), but an actual 
thickness of less than 4.75 mm, is subject to the AD and CVD Orders on 
SSPC.\1\ On March 26, 2013, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department's results of redetermination 
issued in accordance with the CAFC's decision in ArcelorMittal.\2\ 
Those results of redetermination found that SSPC with an actual 
thickness of less than 4.75 mm, regardless of its nominal thickness, is 
not subject to the AD and CVD Orders on SSPC.\3\ Consistent with the 
CAFC's decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), the 
Department is notifying the public that the final CAFC judgment in this 
case is not in harmony with the Department's final determination and is 
amending its Final Scope Ruling concerning SSPC with a nominal 
thickness of 4.75 mm, but an actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. United States, 
694 F.3d 82 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (ArcelorMittal). Because the 
description of the scopes in the multiple SSPC orders is identical 
and given the nature of the inquiry, the Department has considered 
it appropriate pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(m) to conduct a single 
inquiry and issue a single scope ruling that applies to all such 
orders. See Notice of Amended Final Determinations: Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils from Belgium and South Africa; and Notice of 
Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 
Belgium, Italy and South Africa, 64 FR 25288 (May 11, 1999); 
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 
Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and 
Taiwan, 64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999); Notice of Amended Antidumping 
Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, 
Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68 
FR 11520 (March 11, 2003); and Notice of Amended Countervailing Duty 
Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, 
and South Africa, 68 FR 11524 (March 11, 2003) (collectively, AD and 
CVD Orders). The antidumping orders on SSPC from Italy and South 
Korea and the countervailing duty order on Belgium were revoked 
effective August 31, 2011, November 16, 2011, and July 18, 2010, 
respectively. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Italy: 
Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 54207 (August 31, 2011); 
Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocation of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the Republic of Korea; 
and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea, 76 FR 
74771 (December 1, 2011); Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 
Belgium: Final Results of Full Sunset Review and Revocation of the 
Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 25666 (May 5, 2011).
    \2\ See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. United States, 
Court No. 08-00434 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 26, 2013) (memorandum and 
order) (Final CIT Order).
    \3\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, dated 
February 15, 2013 (Second Remand Redetermination).
    \4\ See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Scope 
Ruling, dated December 3, 2008 (Final Scope Ruling).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 17, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 8, Import Administration--International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Having received a scope inquiry request from 
ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. (AMS Belgium),\5\ the Department, 
on December 3, 2008, issued its Final Scope Ruling in which it relied 
upon 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2) to determine that SSPC with a nominal 
thickness of 4.75mm, but with an actual thickness less than 4.75mm, is 
included within the scope of the AD and CVD Orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Formerly known as Ugine & ALZ Belgium N.V. (U&A) and 
currently known as Aperam Stainless Belgium A.V.
    \6\ See Final Scope Ruling at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following a request for a voluntary remand, the CIT remanded the 
Final Scope Ruling to the Department to reconsider whether SSPC with a 
nominal thickness of 4.75 mm, but an actual thickness of less than 4.75 
mm, is subject to the AD and CVD Orders.\7\ In remanding the case, the 
Court directed the Department to apply 19 CFR 351.225, in conjunction 
with the decisions of the CAFC in Duferco Inc. v. United States, 296 
F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002), and Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 
396 F. 3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. United States, 
Court No. 08-00434 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 30, 2010) (remand order).
    \8\ See id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On remand, the Department re-examined the language of the scope 
and, based in part upon interpreting the language in the context of the 
SSPC industry, determined it to be ambiguous as to whether it covers 
SSPC with a nominal thickness of 4.75 mm, but an actual thickness of 
less than 4.75 mm.\9\ Having found the scope language ambiguous, the 
Department then analyzed the criteria specified by 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(1), i.e., ``descriptions of the merchandise contained in the 
petition, the initial investigation, and the determinations of the 
Secretary (including prior scope determinations) and the {International 
Trade

[[Page 30272]]

Commission{time} ,'' and found those to be non-dispositive as well.\10\ 
The Department thus reincorporated its earlier analysis under 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(2) to conclude that SSPC with a nominal thickness greater 
than or equal to 4.75 mm regardless of the actual thickness is included 
within the scope of the AD and CVD Orders.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, 
dated July 29, 2010 (First Remand Redetermination), at 5-8, 16-17.
    \10\ See id. at 8-12, 22-24.
    \11\ See id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 12, 2011, the CIT sustained the Department's First Remand 
Redetermination.\12\ AMS Belgium appealed the CIT's final judgment to 
the CAFC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belg. N.V. v. United States, 
Court No. 08-00434, Slip Op. 11-82 (Ct. Int'l Trade July 12, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 7, 2012, the CAFC reversed the CIT's judgment. The 
CAFC concluded that substantial evidence did not support the 
Department's determination that the language of the SSPC orders is 
ambiguous and held that ``the plain meaning of the orders regarding the 
4.75 mm thickness is a reference to actual thickness of products 
subject to the orders.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ArcelorMittal, 694 F.3d at 88-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 4, 2013, the CIT issued a remand order directing the 
Department to take action in accordance with the CAFC's decision in 
ArcelorMittal and to find that SSPC with an actual thickness of less 
than 4.75 mm is outside the scope of the AD and CVD Orders.\14\ 
Pursuant to that order, the Department construed the scope of the AD 
and CVD Orders so that SSPC from Belgium with an actual thickness of 
less than 4.75 mm is not subject to the AD and CVD Orders on SSPC, 
regardless of its nominal thickness.\15\ The CIT sustained the 
Department's remand redetermination on March 26, 2013.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. United States, 
Court No. 08-00434 (Ct. Int'l Trade Jan. 4, 2013) (remand order).
    \15\ See Second Remand Determination at 6-7, 10.
    \16\ See Final CIT Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades, the CAFC has 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 CAFC's September 7, 2012, judgment 
in ArcelorMittal constitutes a final decision of that court that is not 
in harmony with the Department's Final Scope Ruling. This notice is 
published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to SSPC 
with an actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm, the Department amends 
its Final Scope Ruling and now finds that the scope of the AD and CVD 
Orders excludes SSPC with an actual thickness of less than 4.75 mm, 
regardless of its nominal thickness. Accordingly, the Department will 
issue revised instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 14, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-12223 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P