[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18200-18202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07771]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-932]


Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Scope Ruling on 
Antidumping Duty Order and Notice of Amended Final Results of Scope 
Ruling on Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On September 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision that engineered steel coil 
rod (coil rod) imported by A.L. Patterson, Inc. (Patterson) was outside 
the scope of the antidumping duty order on certain steel threaded rod 
from the People's Republic of China on threaded rod from the PRC.\1\ On 
December 29, 2014, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT 
or Court) issued an order for the Department to take action on remand 
in accordance with the CAFC's decision and to find that Patterson's 
engineered steel coil rod is outside the

[[Page 18201]]

scope of the AD Order.\2\ On March 3, 2015, the CIT issued final 
judgment in A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 
11-00192, affirming the Department of Commerce's (the Department) final 
results of redetermination pursuant to remand.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc., v. United States, 585 Fed. Appx. 
778, 785-86 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Patterson CAFC 2014); see also Certain 
Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 17154 (April 4, 2009) (AD Order).
    \2\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 11-
00192 (CIT December 29, 2014) (CIT Second Remand Order).
    \3\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, A.L. 
Patterson v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11-00192 (Jan. 26, 
2015), available at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/ (Final 
Second Remand Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), the Department is notifying the public that the final 
judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final 
results of the scope ruling on the antidumping duty order on certain 
steel threaded rod from the People's Republic of China, and is amending 
the final results with respect to coil rod imported by Patterson.

DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Gillman, Office V, Enforcement 
and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-6433.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In our initial scope ruling, the Department found coil rod imported 
by Patterson within the scope of the AD Order on threaded rod from the 
PRC.\4\ In that scope ruling, the Department stated that the 
description of the product contained in the petition, the initial 
investigation, and the determinations by the Department (including 
prior scope determinations) and the International Trade Commission 
(ITC) were, in fact, dispositive with respect to Patterson's engineered 
steel coil rod.\5\ Therefore, the Department conducted the scope 
determination pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1). Based on that analysis, 
as the scope language of the AD Order was clear in its requirement that 
subject merchandise consist of products with solid, circular cross 
sections, with threading along greater than 25 percent threading of 
their total length, and Patterson's coil rod met these specific 
requirements of the scope of AD Order, the Department found that 
Patterson's coil rod was within the scope of the AD Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of 
China: A.L. Patterson Final Scope Ruling, A-570-932 (May 24, 2011) 
(Final Scope Ruling); see also AD Order.
    \5\ See Final Scope Ruling at 5.
    \6\ Id., at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Patterson challenged the Department's Final Scope Ruling in the 
CIT. On August 6, 2012, the CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to the 
Department to reconsider its decision that the engineered steel coil 
rod imported by Patterson falls within the scope of the AD Order.\7\ 
Specifically, the Court held that: (1) The Department's decision that 
the scope language encompasses Patterson's product is not supported by 
substantial evidence; (2) if there is no finding of injury or sales at 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) for Patterson's product, the Department's 
determination is not in accordance with law; and (3) the Department 
failed to adequately explain the reasons for its determination.\8\ The 
CIT instructed the Department on remand ``to reconsider whether the 
language of the order includes Patterson's coil rod, following the 
interpretive procedure established in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1).'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, 34 Int'l Trade 
Rep. (BNA) 1894 (CIT 2012) (CIT First Remand Order).
    \8\ See CIT First Remand Order at 9-17.
    \9\ Id., at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On remand, the Department re-examined the language of the petition, 
prior scope determinations, and original investigations of the 
Department and ITC, and the Department continued to find that 
Patterson's coil rod is within the scope of the AD Order.\10\ After 
reviewing the petition, the ITC reports, and the original 
investigations, the Department found that Patterson's coil rod matched 
the physical description of the same class or kind of merchandise 
previously considered by the Department and the ITC based on carbon 
content, threading along the rod, and circular cross-section.\11\ 
Accordingly, the Department found that Patterson's coil rod was within 
the scope of the AD Order under an analysis conducted pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.225(k)(1).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand 
(December 4, 2012) at 14 (First Remand Redetermination).
    \11\ Id., at 14 and 16-19.
    \12\ Id., at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 22, 2013, the CIT sustained the Department's First Remand 
Redetermination.\13\ Patterson appealed the CIT's judgment to the CAFC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 11-
00192 (CIT May 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 22, 2014, the CAFC reversed the CIT's judgment 
sustaining the First Remand Redetermination. As detailed below, the 
CAFC concluded, among other things, that substantial evidence did not 
support the Department's determination that the coil rod at issue was 
part of the ITC's domestic industry analysis during its 
investigation.\14\ Specifically, the CAFC found that ``the record 
before us shows that the investigations that supported the antidumping 
order was {sic{time}  not on Patterson's coil rod but rather other 
kinds of steel threaded rods.'' \15\ Therefore, the CAFC concluded that 
``there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Patterson's coil rod, 
a distinctly different product than steel threaded rod, was part of the 
{ITC{time} 's material injury investigation,'' and as such, found that 
Patterson's engineered steel coil rod is not subject to the AD 
order.\16\ On December 29, 2014, the CIT issued an order for the 
Department to take action on remand in accordance with the CAFC's 
decision in Patterson CAFC 2014 and to find that Patterson's engineered 
steel coil rod is outside the scope of the AD Order.\17\ In the Final 
Second Remand Redetermination, and in following the express directive 
of the CIT Second Remand Order, which instructed the Department to act 
in accordance with the CAFC's decision in Patterson CAFC 2014, the 
Department found that the AD Order did not cover Patterson's coil 
rod.\18\ The CIT affirmed the Department's Final Second Remand 
Determination in its entirety on March 3, 2015, and entered 
judgment.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc., v. United States, 585 Fed. Appx. 
778, 785-86 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Patterson CAFC 2014).
    \15\ Id.; Cf. Sango Int'l, L.P. v. United States, 484 F. 3d 
1371, 1380-1 (CAFC 2007).
    \16\ See Patterson CAFC 2014 at 15.
    \17\ See CIT Second Remand Order.
    \18\ Final Second Remand Determination.
    \19\ See A.L. Patterson, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 11-
00192 (CIT March 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Notice

    The CAFC's decision in Patterson CAFC 2014 and the CIT's March 3, 
2015, judgment affirming the Final Second Remand Determination 
constitutes final court decisions that are not in harmony with the 
Final Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
statutory publication requirements.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is 
amending the Final Scope Ruling with respect to Patterson's coil rod as 
redetermined in the Final Second Remand Redetermination and finds 
engineered steel coil rod imported by imported by A.L. Patterson, Inc. 
to be outside the scope of the AD Order.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because we now find that the scope of the AD Order does not cover 
Patterson's coil rod, no cash deposits for

[[Page 18202]]

estimated antidumping duties on future entries of Patterson's coil rod 
merchandise will be required.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 27, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-07771 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P