[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52402-52403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-967; C-570-968]


Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of 
Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

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

SUMMARY: On July 18, 2016, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (Department) final 
results of redetermination in which the Department determined, under 
protest, that certain kitchen appliance door handles are not covered by 
the scope of the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders 
on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

DATES: Effective Date: July 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone: 202-482-3965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On June 21, 2013, the Department issued a final scope ruling in 
which it determined that three types of kitchen appliance door handles 
(Types A, B, and C) imported by Meridian are within the scope of the 
Orders \1\ and did not meet the scope exclusions for ``finished 
merchandise'' and ``finished goods kits.'' \2\ Meridian challenged the 
Department's final scope ruling at the CIT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011) and Aluminum 
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty 
Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011) (the Orders).
    \2\ See ``Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen Appliance Door 
Handles,'' dated June 21, 2013 (Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope 
Ruling) at 12-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 7, 2015, the CIT issued an opinion and order in 
Meridian I sustaining the Department's findings in the Kitchen 
Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling that Meridian's Type A door handles 
(consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion) and Type C door 
handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion packaged as 
a ``kit'' with a tool and an instruction manual) are within the scope 
of the Orders based on a plain reading of the scope language.\3\ The 
Court, however, remanded the Department's determination that Type B 
door handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion with 
two plastic end caps fastened on with screws) are within the scope of 
the Orders. The Court found the Department's determination to be 
unsupported by the general scope language.\4\ The Court further found 
that, assuming arguendo that Meridian's Type B door handles were 
covered by the scope language, the Department erred in finding that the 
products did not satisfy the ``finished merchandise'' exclusion.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Meridian Products LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-
00246, Slip Op. 15-135 (Meridian I) at 6-9.
    \4\ Id., at 10-13.
    \5\ Id., at 13-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 23, 2016, the Department issued its Final Results of 
Redetermination, in which it found, respectfully, under protest, that 
Meridian's Type B door handles are not covered by the scope of the 
Orders because the general scope language did not cover such products. 
As a result, the Department did not consider whether Meridian's Type B 
door handles were subject to the exclusion for ``finished 
merchandise.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-00246, 
Slip Op. 15-135 (CIT December 7, 2015) (Final Results of 
Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 18, 2016, in Meridian II the Court sustained the 
Department's finding in the Final Results of Redetermination that 
Meridian's Type B door handles are not covered by the scope of the 
Orders.\7\ Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) 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 (CAFC 
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 scope ruling and is amending the final scope ruling to find that 
certain kitchen appliance door handles imported by Meridian LLC 
(Meridian) are not covered by the scope of the AD and CVD orders on 
aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-
00246, Slip Op. 16-71 (Meridian II) at 11.

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

[[Page 52403]]

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades, the Federal Circuit 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 July 18, 2016, 
judgment in Meridian II sustaining the Department's finding in the 
Final Results of Redetermination that Meridian's Type B door handles 
are not covered by the scope of the Orders constitutes a final decision 
of the Court that is not in harmony with the Kitchen Appliance Door 
Handles Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will 
continue the suspension of liquidation of Meridian's Type B door 
handles at issue pending expiration of the period of appeal or, if 
appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the 
Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling, the Department amends its 
final scope ruling and finds that the scope of the Orders does not 
cover Meridian's Type B door handles. The Department will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit rate will be 
zero percent for Meridian's Type B door handles. In the event the CIT's 
ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the Federal Circuit, 
the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Meridian's 
Type B door handles without regard to antidumping and/or countervailing 
duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such entries.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 2, 2016.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-18788 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P