[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4846-4848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00882]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-816]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products From the Republic 
of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results 
and Notice of Amended Final Results

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

SUMMARY: The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained in 
full the Department of Commerce's (the Department) second remand 
results pertaining to the fifteenth administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel flat 
products from the Republic of Korea covering the period of August 1, 
2007, through July 31, 2008. The Department is notifying the public 
that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final 
results of the administrative review, and that the Department is 
amending the final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping 
margins assigned to Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union), 
Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO), and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu).

DATES: Effective December 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3692.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 15, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
issued the Final Results.\1\ Four parties contested the Department's 
findings in the Final Results. Three of the four plaintiffs, Union, 
HYSCO, and Dongbu, are Korean producers/exporters of certain corrosion-
resistant steel flat products (CORE). Union and HYSCO were mandatory 
respondents in the fifteenth administrative review; Dongbu was an 
unexamined respondent subject to the non-selected rate. The remaining 
plaintiff, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), was a 
petitioner in the fifteenth administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Fifteenth 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 13490 (March 22, 2010) (Final Results) 
and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Final Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Final Results, the Department assigned weighted-average 
dumping margins of 14.01 percent to Union and 3.29 percent to HYSCO.\2\ 
As an unexamined respondent, Dongbu received the margin of 8.65 percent 
that the Department assigned to all unexamined respondents, which the 
Department calculated as a simple average of the non-de-minimis margins 
of the examined respondents.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Final Results, 75 FR at 13491.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 25, 2012, the CIT issued its opinion in Union Steel I, which 
remanded various aspects of the Final Results to the Department.\4\ In 
particular, the Court made the following holdings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 837 F. Supp. 2d 
1307 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012) (Union Steel I).

(1) the Department's decision to use financial data pertaining only 
to the 2008 fiscal year of Union's parent company in determining 
Union's interest expense ratio cannot be upheld on judicial review; 
(2) in response to defendant's request for a voluntary remand, the 
court will order the Department to reconsider the ``quarterly cost 
methodology to apply the ``recovery-of-costs'' test to home-market 
sales of Union and HYSCO and the ``indexing'' methodology wherever 
used in the Final Results; (3) on remand, the Department must 
reconsider the use in the Final Results of the quarterly-cost and

[[Page 4847]]

indexing methodologies for various other purposes; (4) the 
Department must reconsider its decision to depart from its normal 
method for selecting comparison months of normal value sales; (5) in 
response to defendant's request for a voluntary remand, the court 
will order the Department to reconsider its decision to compare 
laminated CORE and non-laminated, painted CORE as ``identical'' 
merchandise; (6) in response to defendant's request for a voluntary 
remand, the court will order that Commerce reconsider the use of the 
zeroing methodology in the fifteenth review; (7) no relief is 
available on Dongbu's claim seeking an individually-determined 
dumping margin; and (8) in response to the defendant's request for a 
voluntary remand, remand is appropriate on U.S. Steel's challenge to 
the date of sale used for certain sales by HYSCO through a U.S. 
affiliate. The court determines, in addition, that any modifications 
to the weighted-average dumping margins of Union and HYSCO resulting 
from this remand shall be reflected in the rate applied to 
Dongbu.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id., at 1310, 1337-38.

    Pursuant to Union Steel I, the Department issued the First Remand 
Redetermination,\6\ in which it addressed the Court's holdings and 
revised Union's margin from 14.01 percent to 9.85 percent and HYSCO's 
margin from 3.29 percent to 1.46 percent.\7\ Again, based on a simple 
average of the margins calculated for Union and HYSCO, the Department 
changed Dongbu's margin from 8.65 percent to 5.56 percent.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (Sept. 24, 
2012) (First Remand Redetermination).
    \7\ See First Remand Redetermination at 67.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following consideration of comments submitted to the CIT on the 
First Remand Redetermination and an oral argument, the Court issued its 
decision in Union Steel II, which affirmed in part, and remanded in 
part to the Department, various aspects of the First Remand 
Redetermination.\9\ In particular, the Court remanded for the 
Department to address:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 968 F. Supp. 2d 
1297 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014) (Union Steel II).

(1) the decision to make a major input adjustment when calculating 
Union's interest expense ratio; (2) the application of the modified 
``quarterly cost'' methodology wherever used in the normal value 
calculations for Hyundai HYSCO . . . including the difference-in-
merchandise (``DIFMER'') adjustments and constructed value (``CV'') 
determinations; (3) the application of the modified ``quarterly 
cost'' methodology for all aspects of the normal value calculations 
for Union except the revised sales-below-cost and recovery-of-costs 
tests; (4) the decision to depart from the normal method for 
selecting a comparison month when determining antidumping margins 
for Union and HYSCO; and (5) the decision to depart from the normal 
method by selecting the date of shipment, rather than the date of 
invoice, as the date of sale for certain sales that HYSCO made 
through a U.S. affiliate, Hyundai HYSCO USA, Inc.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id., at 1300, 1327-28.

The Court also instructed the Department to ``recalculate the margin 
for Dongbu based on the redetermined margins for Union and HYSCO.'' 
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Union Steel II, the Department issued the Second 
Remand Redetermination in which it reconsidered the remanded issues and 
revised the 9.85 percent margin it previously determined for Union to 
9.83 percent.\12\ The Department revised HYSCO's margin from 1.46 
percent to 5.56 percent.\13\ Once again assigning Dongbu a margin based 
on a simple average of the Union and HYSCO margins, the Department 
changed Dongbu's margin from 5.56 percent to 7.70 percent.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, at 44 
(Aug. 1, 2014) (Second Remand Redetermination).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Union Steel III, the CIT sustained in full the Department's 
Second Remand Redetermination.\15\ In particular, the CIT sustained the 
Department's decision to depart from its 90/60-day window period 
regulation and to instead limit comparisons of individual U.S. sales to 
home market sales that occurred during the same quarter, based on the 
fact that the Department had relied on its quarterly cost methodology 
because there were significantly changing costs throughout the review 
period.\16\ Furthermore, the Court sustained the Department's 
determination to rely on invoice date instead of shipment date for 
determining the date of sale for HYSCO's U.S. sales in the Second 
Remand Redetermination, because certain evidence in HYSCO's 
questionnaire responses indicated that price remained subject to change 
after shipment.\17\ Finally, the Court sustained four other aspects of 
the Second Remand Redetermination, which were not challenged by any 
party: (1) The Department's calculation of Union Steel's interest 
expense ratio; (2) the Department's modification to its cost-recovery 
test as applied to HYSCO on remand, in which the Department 
discontinued relying on surrogate costs and relied instead on HYSCO's 
actual costs from the quarters in which there was production during the 
period of review; (3) the Department's decision to use unindexed 
quarterly cost data to calculate CV and DIFMER adjustments; and (4) the 
Department's use of a surrogate-based method in calculating CV and 
DIFMER adjustments, which was different than the method used when 
applying its cost-recovery test to HYSCO in the Department's First 
Remand Redetermination, which the Court had found objectionable in 
Union Steel II.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, Ct. Int'l Trade 
Slip Op. 16-117 (Dec. 15, 2016) (Union Steel III), at 2, 26.
    \16\ Id., at 16-20.
    \17\ Id., at 11-13.
    \18\ Id., at 5-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in Union Steel III, the Court affirmed the following dumping 
margins as calculated by the Department in the Second Remand 
Redetermination: 9.83 percent for Union, 5.56 percent for HYSCO, and 
7.70 percent for Dongbu.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\19\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\20\ the Court of Appeals for 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 December 15, 2016, final judgement sustaining the Second 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 requirements of Timken. 
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation 
of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court 
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
    \20\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the 
Final Results with respect to the dumping margins calculated for Union, 
HYSCO, and Dongbu. Based on the Second Remand Redetermination, as 
affirmed by the CIT in Union Steel III, the revised dumping margins for 
Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu are 9.83 percent, 5.56 percent, and 7.70 
percent, respectively.
    In the event that the CIT's rulings are not appealed or, if 
appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the 
Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
assess antidumping duties on

[[Page 4848]]

unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised 
dumping margins listed above.

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, due to the revocation of 
the order.\21\ Therefore, no cash deposit requirements will be imposed 
as a result of these amended final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832, 16833 (March 19, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice 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 10, 2017.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance,
[FR Doc. 2017-00882 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P