[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30210-30211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12786]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-911]


Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe From the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the 
Implemented Final Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act

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

SUMMARY: On May 7, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade 
(CIT or Court) issued final judgment in Wheatland Tube Company v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 12-00298, affirming the Department of 
Commerce's (the Department) redetermination pursuant to court remand. 
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 implemented final 
determination in a proceeding conducted under section 129 of the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (section 129) related to the Department's 
final affirmative countervailing duty determination on circular welded 
carbon quality steel pipe (CWP) from the People's Republic of China 
(China).

DATES: Effective Date: May 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler, Office I, Enforcement 
and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 22, 2008, the Department published antidumping duty (AD) 
and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on CWP imports from China.\1\ The 
Government of China (GOC) challenged the CWP orders and three other 
sets of simultaneously imposed AD and CVD orders before the WTO's 
Dispute Settlement Body. The WTO Appellate Body in March 2011 found 
that the United States had acted inconsistently with its international 
obligations in several respects, including the potential imposition of 
overlapping remedies, or so-called ``double remedies.'' \2\ The U.S. 
Trade Representative announced the United States' intention to comply 
with the WTO's rulings and recommendations, and the Department 
initiated a section 129 proceeding.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon 
Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 42547 
(July 22, 2008); Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008); Circular Welded Carbon 
Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Notice of Countervailing Duty Order, 73 FR 42545 (July 22, 2008) 
(collectively, CWP orders).
    \2\ See United States--Definitive Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China, 611, WT/DS379/
AB/R (Mar. 11, 2011).
    \3\ See Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 
Tires; Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe; Laminated Woven 
Sacks; and Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the People's 
Republic of China, 77 FR 52683 (August 30, 2012) (Implementation 
Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 31, 2012, the Department issued its final determination 
memorandum in the section 129 CVD proceeding on, inter alia, the double 
remedies issue.\4\ Based on its analysis of broad manufacturing-level 
information, the Department found that an adjustment was warranted to 
the antidumping duty on U.S. CWP imports from China to account for 
remedies that overlap those imposed by the CVD order.\5\ On August 30, 
2012, acting at the direction of the U.S. Trade Representative pursuant 
to section 129, the Department published a notice implementing that 
final determination.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ``Final 
Determination: Section 129 Proceeding Pursuant to the WTO Appellate 
Body's Findings in WTO DS379 Regarding the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon Quality 
Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China,'' (July 31, 2012) 
(Section 129 Final Determination).
    \5\ See Section 129 Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 10; see 
also Memorandum from Christopher Mutz, Office of Policy, Import 
Administration, and Daniel Calhoun, Office of the Chief Counsel for 
Import Administration, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, ``Section 129 Determination of the 
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon Quality 
Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: `Double Remedies' 
Analysis Pursuant to the WTO Appellate Body's Findings in WTO 
DS379,'' (May 31, 2012), at 34-35.
    \6\ See Implementation Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Plaintiff Wheatland Tube Company, Consolidated Plaintiff-Intervenor 
United States Steel Corporation, and Consolidated Plaintiff-Intervenors 
Allied Tube and Conduit and TMK IPSCO (collectively, the Domestic 
Interested Parties), challenged the Department's determination at the 
CIT.
    On November 26, 2014, the Court remanded the section 129 Final 
Determination to the Department for further consideration of the 
finding that certain countervailable subsidies reduced the average 
price of U.S. CWP imports, such that the reduction warranted an 
adjustment to the companion AD rates under section 777A(f) of the 
Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Wheatland Tube Company v. United States, Slip Op. 14-
137, Consol. Court No. 12-00298 (CIT November 26, 2014) (Remand 
Order). The manner in which the Department applied that adjustment 
in the companion AD proceeding is the subject of Wheatland Tube 
Company v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12-00296, which has been 
stayed pending resolution of the litigation that is the subject of 
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the CIT's issuance of the Remand Order, the Department 
released a questionnaire to the original respondents in the CWP CVD 
investigation to obtain information necessary for its analysis under 
the Remand Order.\8\ The Department also issued copies of the 
questionnaire to the GOC and its counsel in the section 129 
proceeding.\9\ Neither mandatory respondent nor the GOC, however, filed 
a response to this questionnaire or comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Letter to Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (East Pipe) 
dated January 28, 2015, ``Section 129 Remand Redetermination of 
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic 
of China--Domestic Subsidies Questionnaire;'' see also Letter to 
Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd.; Kingland 
Group Co., Ltd.; Beijing Kingland Century Technologies Co.; Zhejiang 
Kingland Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd.; and Shanxi Kingland Pipeline 
Co., Ltd. (collectively, Kingland), dated January 28, 2015, 
``Section 129 Remand Redetermination of Circular Welded Carbon 
Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China--Domestic 
Subsidies Questionnaire.''
    \9\ See Memorandum to the File from Shane Subler, International 
Trade Compliance Analyst, dated March 27, 2015, ``Documentation for 
Release of Questionnaire for Section 129 Remand Redetermination.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Remand Order, the Department reconsidered its 
finding regarding the respondents' eligibility for

[[Page 30211]]

an adjustment, and found no basis for making such an adjustment to the 
companion AD rates under section 777(A)(f)(1)(b) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ``Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Wheatland 
Tube Company v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12-00298, Slip Op. 
14-137,'' (April 27, 2015) (Remand Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 7, 2015, the CIT sustained the Department's Remand 
Redetermination.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Wheatland Tube Company v. United States, Slip Op. 15-
44, Consol. Court No. 12-00298 (CIT May 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Notice

    The CIT's May 7, 2015, judgment affirming the Remand 
Redetermination constitutes a final court decision that is not in 
harmony with the section 129 Final Determination. This notice is 
published in fulfillment of the statutory publication requirements.

Notification to Interested Parties

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

    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-12786 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P