[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55834-55836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23360]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-816]


Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic 
of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of 
Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision

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

SUMMARY: On August 31, 2015, the United States Court of International 
Trade (the Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's (Department) 
Final Remand Redetermination pertaining to the 19th administrative 
review of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from 
the Republic of Korea (Korea).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. 
Court No. 14-00098, Slip Op. 15-99 (August 31, 2015); Final Results 
of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Court No. 14-00098, 
dated July 24, 2015 (Final Remand Redetermination); and Dongbu Steel 
Co. v. United States, 61 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015) 
(Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,\2\ as

[[Page 55835]]

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\3\ 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 19th administrative review of CORE 
from Korea, and that it is amending the final results with respect to 
Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu) and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
(Union Steel).\4\ The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2011, through 
February 14, 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \3\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
    \4\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the 
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 17503 (March 28, 2014) (Final Results), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memo).
    \5\ The period of review ends on February 14, 2012 because the 
antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea was revoked effective on 
this date. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832 (March 19, 2013) (CORE 
Revocation).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore, 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-
3692.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 26, 2012, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea for the period 
August 1, 2011, through July 31, 2012.\6\ On March 19, 2013, as a 
result of the International Trade Commission's determination in the 
third sunset review, the Department published a notice that the 
antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea would be revoked, but that it 
would complete any pending reviews of entries made prior to February 
14, 2012, the effective date of revocation.\7\ For the Preliminary 
Results, published on September 9, 2013, the Department shortened the 
POR for the ongoing administrative review to reflect the effective date 
of revocation of the antidumping order.\8\ In its preliminary dumping 
calculations, the Department truncated the sales databases to conform 
to the shortened POR. However, in conducting the sales below cost and 
cost recovery tests to determine the pool of home market sales 
available for the calculation of normal value, the Department used the 
cost of production database submitted by Dongbu covering the original 
August 1, 2011, through July 31, 2012, review period. For the Final 
Results, the Department continued to use Dongbu's weighted-average cost 
data for the full-year POR in its antidumping calculations.\9\ The 
Department also used Dongbu's weighted-average dumping margin as the 
rate for non-examined respondent Union Steel, because it was the only 
rate that was not zero, de minimis, or based on total facts 
available.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 77 FR 
59168 (September 26, 2012).
    \7\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832 (March 19, 2013); 
Determinations: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Germany and Korea, 78 FR 15376 (March 11, 2013).
    \8\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, 78 
FR 55057 (September 9, 2013), and accompanying Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum (Preliminary Results).
    \9\ See Final Results, and accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 1.
    \10\ See Final Results, 79 FR at 17504 & n.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before the Court, Dongbu and Union Steel challenged the 
Department's determination to use the 12-month cost of production data 
in both the cost recovery and sales below cost tests, arguing that the 
language of the cost recovery test in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) requires that prices be 
measured for cost recovery against the weighted-average cost of 
production for the shortened POR, and that the Department accordingly 
should have requested new cost data for the revised POR and 
recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin.\11\ Dongbu and Union 
Steel further argued that the Department's use of costs outside the POR 
in the sales below cost test was unlawful because the statute requires 
that the cost of production ``reasonably reflect the costs associated 
with the production and sale of the merchandise, during the period of 
review.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Remand Order, 61 F. Supp. 3d at 1381.
    \12\ Id., at 1388.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Remand Order, the Court held that the language of the 
statute ``unambiguously prohibited the Department from using cost data 
for a period other than the POR to calculate the weighted average cost 
of production for purposes of the cost recovery test,'' and that 
``{n{time} othing in the statutory framework contradicts the cost 
recovery test's plain language regarding the POR.'' \13\ The Court 
rejected the Department's remaining arguments regarding the cost 
recovery test provision.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id., at 1384.
    \14\ Id., at 1385-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Court agreed that the Department has discretion to 
include costs outside of the POR in conducting the sales below cost 
test, but found the Department's explanation as to why it included 
post-review period cost data inadequate, and remanded to the Department 
to ``explain its decision in this case that the costs incurred after 
the POR reasonably reflect the costs of the product under review.'' 
\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id., at 1388-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reopening the record to obtain cost of production data 
reflecting the revised POR from Dongbu, issuing a draft remand 
redetermination, and soliciting comments, the Department issued the 
Final Remand Redetermination on July 24, 2015. In the Final Remand 
Redetermination, the Department modified its dumping calculations by 
comparing Dongbu's home market sales against cost data from the revised 
POR to determine whether such sales were made at prices that would 
provide for the recovery of costs.\16\ The Department relied on this 
same cost data in administering the sales below cost test for 
Dongbu.\17\ Finally, the Department assigned Dongbu's revised dumping 
margin to Union Steel.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Final Remand Redetermination at 5.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id., at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the 
CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 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 Court's judgment 
sustaining the Final Remand Redetermination constitutes a final 
decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's 
Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
publication requirement 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. In the event the Court's ruling 
is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 
antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject

[[Page 55836]]

merchandise exported by the producers and/or exporters listed below at 
the rates listed below.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is 
amending the Final Results with respect to Dongbu and Union Steel, 
plaintiffs in this case. The revised weighted-average dumping margins 
for these producers/exporters during the period August 1, 2011, through 
February 14, 2012, are as follows:

                    Weighted-Average Dumping Margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                   Producer/Exporter                     dumping margin
                                                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu................................................              5.38
Union Steel...........................................              5.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department notified CBP to discontinue the collection of cash 
deposits on entries of the subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn 
from warehouse, on or after February 14, 2012.\19\ Therefore, no cash 
deposit requirements will be imposed in response to these amended final 
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See CORE Revocation, 78 FR at 16833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: September 10, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-23360 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P