[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36519-36521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13534]


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

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 Final Determination 
Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Reinstatement 
of Order, in Part

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

SUMMARY: On May 11, 2016, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``the Court'') issued final judgment in Diamond Sawblades 
Manufacturers' Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13-00168,\1\ 
sustaining the Department of Commerce's (``the Department'') voluntary 
final remand results concerning the Implemented PRC Section 129 
Determination.\2\ In the Final Section 129 Remand, the Department 
determined that it was appropriate to reinstate the partially revoked 
antidumping duty order (``the order'') on diamond sawblades and parts 
thereof (``diamond sawblades'') from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') with respect to Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. 
(``AT&M'') \3\ where the basis for the Implemented PRC Section 129 
Determination was no longer valid.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturer's Coalition v. United 
States, Consol. Court No. 13-00168, Slip Op. 16-48 (CIT May 11, 
2016) (``DSMC'').
    \2\ See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Diamond 
Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United States, Consol. Court 
No. 13-00168, Slip Op. 15-92 (CIT August 20, 2015), dated December 
1, 2015, (``Final Section 129 Remand'') available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/; Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
the People's Republic of China and Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty 
Orders, 78 FR 18958 (March 28, 2013) (``Implemented PRC Section 129 
Determination'').
    \3\ Collectively with Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company 
and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd., a single entity. 
See Implemented PRC Section 129 Determination, 78 FR 18958, 18959 at 
n. 10.
    \4\ See Final Section 129 Remand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the

[[Page 36520]]

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 
implemented final determination in a proceeding conducted under section 
129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Section 129). Furthermore, the 
Department is reinstating the order with respect to AT&M.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Who, was stated in the Implemented PRC Section 129 
Determination was, collectively with Beijing Gang Yan Diamond 
Product Company and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd., a 
single entity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: May 21, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Devine, AD/CVD Operations 
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-
0238.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, the 
Department determined that mandatory respondent AT&M was eligible for a 
separate rate, and calculated a separate estimated weighted-average 
dumping margin for it.\6\ Petitioner, the Diamond Sawblades 
Manufacturers' Coalition (``DSMC''), challenged the Department's 
separate-rate determination in court.\7\ Concurrently, the PRC 
challenged the Department's use of its ``zeroing'' methodology in 
calculating dumping margins in certain LTFV investigations before the 
World Trade Organization's (``WTO'') Dispute Settlement Body.\8\ 
Effective March 22, 2013, in response to the dispute settlement panel's 
findings and instructions by the United States Trade Representative 
(``USTR'') to implement the Department's determination under Section 
129 of the URAA, the Department recalculated AT&M's weighted-average 
dumping margin from the LTFV investigation without the use of 
zeroing.\9\ Removing the zeroing methodology resulted in AT&M receiving 
a calculated dumping margin of zero.\10\ Consequently, the Department 
partially revoked the order with respect to AT&M. The DSMC challenged 
this determination before the Court. Additionally, in the ongoing 
litigation relating to the Department's separate-rate determination in 
the LTFV investigation, the Department reconsidered AT&M's separate 
rate eligibility and determined that AT&M had not rebutted the 
presumption of state control, and thus, was not eligible for a separate 
rate.\11\ The rate applicable to the PRC-wide entity in the LTFV 
investigation was based on information in the petition and did not 
involve zeroing.\12\ On October 11, 2013, the Court sustained the 
Department's redetermination that AT&M failed to rebut the presumption 
of state control, and therefore, was not eligible for a separate 
rate.\13\ On October 24, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (``CAFC'') affirmed the Court's decision.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Implemented PRC Section 129 Determination at 29306.
    \7\ See Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States, 
938 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (CIT 2013).
    \8\ See WTO Panel Report, United States--Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Certain Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China, WT/DS422/R (June 
8, 2012).
    \9\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's 
Republic of China and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Implementation of 
Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 78 FR 18958, 
18960 (March 28, 2013).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand 
Order Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic 
of China, Advanced Tech. & Material Co. v. United States, CIT Ct. 
No. 09-511 (May 6, 2013) (``Advanced Tech. Remand'') available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/12-147.pdf.
    \12\ See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77129 
(December 29, 2005) unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
    \13\ See Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States, 
938 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (CIT 2013).
    \14\ See Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States, 
581 Fed. Appx. 900 (CAFC 2014) (Rule 36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of AT&M's ineligibility for a separate rate in the LTFV 
investigation, and the inapplicability of the separate-rate applied to 
AT&M in the LTFV investigation which served as the basis of the 
Department's Implemented PRC Section 129 determination, in the 
litigation concerning the Implemented PRC Section 129 determination, 
the United States moved for a voluntary remand to reconsider its 
partial revocation of the dumping order. The Court granted the United 
States' motion.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, Court No. 13-00168, Slip op. 15-92 (August 20, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 1, 2015, the Department issued the final results of 
redetermination in this section 129 remand and filed this remand with 
the Court.\16\ On May 11, 2016, the Court entered judgment sustaining 
the remand results.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Final Section 129 Remand.
    \17\ See Final Sustained Remand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Court's May 11, 2016, 
judgment sustaining the Final Section 129 Remand constitutes a final 
decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's 
Implemented PRC Section 129 Determination.\18\ This notice is published 
in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See DSMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reinstatement of the Order

    In the Final Section 129 Remand, sustained by the Court,\19\ the 
Department determined that reinstatement of the order with regard to 
AT&M was appropriate.\20\ Accordingly, consistent with the Final 
Section 129 Remand and the decision by the Court sustaining that 
redetermination, the Department hereby reinstates the order as it 
applies to AT&M. Consistent with the Department's stated intention in 
the Final Section 129 Remand, this reinstatement of the order with 
regard to AT&M is effective as of March 22, 2013, which was the 
effective date of the partial revocation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See DSMC at 5-6.
    \20\ See Final Section 129 Remand; see also DSMC.
    \21\ See Final Section 129 Remand, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 
require cash deposits at 82.05 percent, the current rate established 
for the PRC-wide entity.\22\ Pursuant to the Court's finding that the 
Department should have issued those instructions upon filing the 
redetermination with the Court, those instructions will be effective as 
of December 1, 2015, the date the remand

[[Page 36521]]

redetermination was filed with the Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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, 32345 (June 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 129(c)(2)(A) of the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

    Dated: June 1, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-13534 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P