[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7153-7154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03375]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-805]


Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: 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: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public 
that the Court of International Trade's (CIT or the Court) final 
judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final scope 
ruling and is, therefore, finding that certain black, circular tubing 
produced to ASTM A-513 specifications by Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. 
(Maquilacero) is not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on 
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico.

DATES: Applicable Date: February 19, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On July 27, 2015, Commerce issued the Maquilacero Scope Ruling,\1\ 
in which it determined, under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), that 46 products 
produced by Maquilacero to specification A-513 did not meet the 
exclusion for ``mechanical tubing'' in the scope of the Order,\2\ and 
were, therefore, within the scope of the Order. In particular, Commerce 
relied upon a prior scope ruling pertaining to certain mechanical 
tubing products produced by Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de 
C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc. (Prolamsa), which was conducted under 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(2), and which defined ``mechanical tubing'' as tubing that 
met a variety of physical, chemical, and mechanical characteristics, 
and was stenciled.\3\ Commerce found that Maquilacero's tubing was not 
stenciled, and, thus, was not ``mechanical tubing.'' \4\ Maquilacero 
challenged Commerce's final scope ruling before the CIT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Certain Black, 
Circular Tubing Produced to ASTM A-513 Specifications by Maquilacero 
S.A. de C.V.,'' dated July 27, 2015 (Maquilacero Scope Ruling).
    \2\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea 
(Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela and Amendment to Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Welded Non-Alloy Steel 
Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992) (the Order).
    \3\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Certain Black, 
Circular Tubing Produced to ASTM A-513 Specifications by Productos 
Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc.,'' dated 
January 12, 2015 (Prolamsa Final Scope Ruling).
    \4\ See Maquilacero Scope Ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 30, 2017, the Court remanded the Maquilacero Scope Ruling 
to Commerce.\5\ Specifically, the Court held that Commerce did not 
``properly consider how the mention of stenciling came to be found in 
the ruling excluding Prolamsa's pipe from the Order,'' particularly 
given that stenciling ``does not change the inherent quality or the 
intended use of the product.'' \6\ As such, the Court concluded that 
``the imposition of a requirement {(i.e., stenciling){time}  having 
nothing to do with the physical characteristics of mechanical tubing 
and that appeared in the Prolamsa Final Scope Ruling by chance { 
{time}  was unreasonable.'' \7\ Thus, the Court found ``that Commerce's 
ruling unlawfully expanded the scope of the Order to include 
{Maquilacero{time} 's merchandise,'' \8\ and remanded the Final Scope 
Ruling to Commerce to ``(1) not impose a stenciling requirement, and 
(2) find that Maquilacero's tubing is excluded from the Order based on 
its analysis found on pages 6-9 of the Final Scope Ruling.'' \9\ In 
particular, the Court instructed Commerce to ``find plaintiff's 
products are excluded from the Order using the same analysis in the 
Final Scope Ruling and that is found in this opinion.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 17-
117, Court No. 15-00287 (CIT 2017).
    \6\ See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17-117, at 29.
    \7\ See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17-117, at 32.
    \8\ Id., at 26.
    \9\ See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17-117, at 32-33.
    \10\ Id., at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Court's instructions, Commerce issued the Final 
Remand

[[Page 7154]]

Results.\11\ Consistent with the Court's instructions, Commerce found 
that the 46 products included in Maquilacero's scope ruling request are 
excluded from the Order, because those products meet all physical, 
chemical, and mechanical properties of mechanical tubing, 
notwithstanding that the products are not stenciled. On February 9, 
2018, the Court sustained Commerce's Final Remand Results in their 
entirety.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand in 
Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Ct. No. 15-00287, 
November 27, 2017 (Final Remand Results).
    \12\ See Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 18-
8, Court No. 15-00287 (CIT 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\13\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\14\ the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the 
Act, Commerce 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 February 9, 2018, judgment in Maquilacero, sustaining Commerce's 
decision in the Final Remand Results that the 46 products included in 
Maquilacero's scope ruling request are excluded from the Order 
constitutes a final decision of the court that is not in harmony with 
the Maquilacero Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment 
of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will 
continue the suspension of liquidation of the 46 products at issue 
pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, pending a 
final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken), at 341.
    \14\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 20 10) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the 
Maquilacero Scope Ruling, Commerce is amending its final scope ruling. 
Commerce finds that the scope of the Order does not cover the products 
addressed in the Maquilacero Scope Ruling. Commerce will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit rate will be 
zero percent for the 46 products subject to Maquilacero's scope ruling 
request. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if 
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate 
entries of the 46 products at issue without regard to antidumping and/
or countervailing duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such 
entries.

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: February 13, 2018.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing 
the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-03375 Filed 2-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P