[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 143 (Monday, July 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44326-44327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18335]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-830]


Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Notice of 
Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended 
Final Determination

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

SUMMARY: On December 22, 2014, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) entered its final judgment in Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and 
Deacero Usa, Inc. v. United States and Arcelormittal USA LLC, Gerdau 
Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, and Nucor 
Corporation, Court No. 12-00345, Slip Op. 14-151 (Deacero III), 
sustaining the Department of Commerce's (the Department) negative 
circumvention determination from the First Remand Results.\1\ 
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, 626 F.3d 1374 (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 
Determination \2\ that, pursuant to section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.225, Deacero's entries of 
wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 millimeters (mm) to 5.00 mm 
constitute circumvention of the Order.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Deacero 
S.A. de C.V. and Deacero USA Inc. v. United States and Arcelormittal 
USA LLC, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, 
and Nucor Corporation, Court No. 12-00345; Slip Op. 13-126 (CIT 
2013) (January 29, 2014) (First Remand Results).
    \2\ See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: 
Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping 
Duty Order, 77 FR 59892 (October 1, 2012) (Final Determination) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Decision 
Memorandum).
    \3\ See 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 (October 29, 2002) 
(Order).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6071.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 1, 2012, the Department issued its Final Determination 
in which it determined that Deacero's shipments of wire rod with an 
actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm constitute a circumventing minor 
alteration of the Order.\4\ Deacero challenged the Department's 
determination. Upon review, the CIT remanded the Final Determination, 
holding that the Department improperly determined that wire rod with a 
thickness between 4.75 mm and 5.00 mm was inside the scope despite the 
fact that it was commercially available before the investigation and

[[Page 44327]]

petitioners ``consciously chose to limit the Order's reach to certain 
steel products 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm in solid cross-
sectional diameter.'' \5\ On remand, based on the Court's reasoning, 
the Department found that there is no alternative but to change the 
results of the anti-circumvention determination and find on remand that 
4.75 mm wire rod is not within the scope of the Order.\6\ In Deacero 
II, the Court held that although the Department ultimately reached a 
supportable result in the First Remand Results, remand was nonetheless 
necessary because the Department arrived at the result by 
misinterpreting Deacero I.\7\ Therefore, in Deacero II, the Court 
instructed the Department to explain whether it seeks the Court's leave 
to revisit the issue of commercial availability.\8\ In the Second 
Remand Results, the Department continued to respectfully disagree with 
the Court that the ``commercial availability'' of a product in the 
country in question, in a third country or in the United States bars 
the Department from reaching an affirmative anti-circumvention 
determination under the minor alteration provision of the statute.\9\ 
For these same reasons, the Department did not request a remand to 
further consider ``commercial availability'' in the context of this 
minor alteration proceeding. On December 22, 2014, the CIT entered 
final judgment sustaining the First Remand Results.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Final Determination.
    \5\ See Deacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 37 CIT, 942 F. 
Supp. 2d 1321, 1324-25 (2013).
    (Deacero I);Deacero Remand, Slip Op. 13-126 at 15.
    \6\ See First Remand Results at 6.
    \7\ See Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 14-
99, 2014 WL 4244349, *1-3 (CIT Aug. 28, 2014) (Deacero II) at 11-12.
    \8\ Id. at 12.
    \9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Deacero 
S.A. de C.V. et al v. United States, Court No. 12-00345; Slip Op. 
14-99 (CIT August 28, 2014) (Second Remand Results).
    \10\ See Deacero III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 December 22, 2014 judgment 
sustaining the Department's First Remand Results with respect to 
Deacero's shipments of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 
5.00 mm not constituting a circumventing minor alteration of the Order 
constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with 
the Department's Final Determination. This notice is published in 
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Amended Final Determination

    Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the 
Final Determination with respect to Deacero's shipments of wire rod 
with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm. Based on the negative 
circumvention determination, Deacero's 4.75 mm wire rod is not subject 
to antidumping duties.
    Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of 
liquidation of the subject merchandise, but set the cash deposit rate 
for the 4.75 mm up to 5 mm diameter wire rod to zero pending a final 
and conclusive court decision. For any antidumping duties which have 
been deposited for 4.75 up to 5mm diameter wire rod entered from 
January 1, 2015 to the date of this notice, we will instruct Customs 
and Border Protection to refund the cash deposit upon request but 
continue to suspend the entries at a zero cash deposit rate.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-18335 Filed 7-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P