[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2843-2844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00917]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-900]


Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results 
of Review and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 21, 2015, the United States Court of International 
Trade (Court) sustained our final remand redetermination pertaining to 
the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond 
sawblades and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China 
covering the period November 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011.\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 of Commerce (the Department) is notifying 
the public that the Court's final judgment in this case is not in 
harmony with the AR2 Final Results \2\ and that the Department is 
amending the AR2 Final Results with respect to the ATM Single Entity 
\3\ and the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Remand Redetermination pursuant to Diamond 
Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13-
00241, slip op. 14-112 (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 23, 2014), dated May 
18, 2015, and available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/14-112.pdf (AR2 Remand), aff'd, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' 
Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13-00241, slip op. 15-116 (Ct. 
Int'l Trade Oct. 21, 2015).
    \2\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2010-2011, 78 FR 36166 (June 17, 2013), as amended in 
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2010-2011, 78 FR 42930 (July 18, 2013) (collectively, AR2 
Final Results).
    \3\ The ATM Single Entity includes Advanced Technology & 
Materials Co., Ltd., Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Co., HXF Saw 
Co., Ltd., AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd., and Cliff 
International Ltd. See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2009-2010, 78 FR 11143, 11144-45 n.9 
(February 15, 2013), and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: 2010-2011, 77 FR 73417, 73418 (December 
10, 2012), unchanged in AR2 Final Results.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: October 31, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5760 
or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On June 17, 2013, as amended on July 18, 2013, the Department 
published the AR2 Final Results. The Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' 
Coalition (DSMC) challenged certain aspects of the Department's AR2 
Final Results. On September 23, 2014, the Court remanded the AR2 Final 
Results to the Department to: (1) Reconsider the ATM Single Entity's 
separate rate status; (2) explain where in the statute or other 
authority the Department finds the non-ministerial discretion not to 
determine if there is a pattern of differing export price or 
constructed export price for the purposes of using an alternate 
comparison methodology, regardless of whether an allegation is raised 
to that effect; and (3) explain how the methodology for valuing Weihai 
Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd.'s (Weihai) steel cores is 
consistent with the first review, why Weihai's NME experience better 
reflects Weihai's experience of purchasing cores even though it is 
located in an NME country, and provide a full explanation of its

[[Page 2844]]

chosen methodology.\4\ On remand, the Department (1) denied the ATM 
Single Entity a separate rate and revised the PRC-wide rate; (2) 
explained that the Department's practice is to require targeted dumping 
allegations before the preliminary results and, because DSMC filed the 
targeted dumping allegation after the preliminary results, the targeted 
dumping allegation in this review was untimely; and (3) explained the 
Department's methodology for valuing Weihai's steel cores.\5\ On 
October 21, 2015, the Court upheld our final remand redetermination for 
this review in its entirety.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, Court No. 13-00241, slip op. 14-112 (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 
23, 2014).
    \5\ See AR2 Remand.
    \6\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United 
States, Court No. 13-00241, slip op. 15-116 (Ct. Int'l Trade Oct. 
21, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 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 Court's final judgment affirming the final remand 
redetermination constitutes the Court's final decision which is not in 
harmony with the AR2 Final Results. This notice is published in 
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the 
Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject 
merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Results of Review

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is 
amending the AR2 Final Results with respect to the PRC-wide entity, 
which includes the ATM Single Entity, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                         Exporter                              dumping
                                                               margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Entity (which includes the ATM Single Entity)....        82.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event the Court's ruling is upheld by a final and conclusive 
court decision, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries 
of subject merchandise based on the revised rate the Department 
determined and listed above.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Since the AR2 Remand, the Department has established a new cash 
deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity, which includes the ATM Single 
Entity.\7\ Therefore, the cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity 
does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 32344 (June 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: January 12, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-00917 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P