[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37832-37833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16656]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-824]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2015-2016; and Notice of 
Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
2015-2016

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 23, 2019, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment sustaining the final results of 
redetermination pertaining to the 2015-2016 antidumping duty (AD) 
administrative review of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and 
strip (PET Film) from India. The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is 
notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in 
harmony with the final results of the AD administrative review, and 
that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the 
weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Jindal Poly Films Limited 
of India.

DATES: Applicable July 23, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance--International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255.

[[Page 37833]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 13, 2018, Commerce published the Final Results.\1\ 
Subsequently, Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal), a mandatory 
respondent in the underlying proceeding, filed suit at the CIT to 
challenge certain aspects of the Final Results. On March 11, 2019, the 
CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce, to further explain its 
decision to deny Jindal's claimed Financing Charges Discount and the 
Exclusive Dealer Discount post-sale adjustments, finding that Commerce 
had failed to articulate its reasoning for denying the adjustments.\2\ 
On July 10, 2019, Commerce issued its Remand Results, in which it 
granted post-sale price adjustments for Jindal's Financing Charges 
Discount and Exclusive Dealer Discount.\3\ On July 23, 2019, the CIT 
sustained Commerce's Remand Results, and entered final judgment.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2015-2016, 83 FR 6162 (February 13, 2018) (Final Results), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ See Jindal Poly Films Limited of India v. United States, 
Court No. 18-00038, Slip Op. 19-31 (CIT 2019).
    \3\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Jindal Poly Films Limited of India v. United States, Court 
No. 18-00038 (July 10, 2019) (Remand Results).
    \4\ See Jindal Poly Films Limited of India v. United States, 
Court No. 18-00038, Slip Op. 19-91 (CIT 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\5\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\6\ 
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), 
Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in 
harmony'' with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of 
entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's July 23, 
2019, judgment sustaining Commerce's Remand Results constitutes a final 
decision of that court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final 
Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication 
requirements of Timken. Commerce will continue the suspension of 
liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the 
period of appeal, or if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court 
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \6\ 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, Commerce is amending 
its Final Results with respect to Jindal's weighted-average dumping 
margin. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for Jindal for the 
July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, period of review is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Producer or  exporter                       dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jindal Poly Films Limited of India \7\.....................        0.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, is 
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will instruct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on 
unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised rates 
calculated by Commerce in the Remand Results and listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Initiation Notice also lists the company as Jindal Poly 
Films Ltd. (India). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 62720, (September 12, 2016). As 
noted in the Preliminary Decision Memoranda, dated concurrently with 
the Federal Register notice, the Department has determined that 
Jindal Poly Films Limited of India is the same company as Jindal 
Poly Films Ltd. (India). See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 
and Strip from India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 82 FR 36735 
(August 7, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because the cash deposit rate for the company listed above, has 
been superseded by a cash deposit rate calculated in an intervening 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from 
India,\8\ we will not alter the cash deposit rate currently in effect 
for these respondents based on these amended final results. Effective 
March 13, 2019, the cash deposit rate applicable to entries of subject 
merchandise exported by Jindal is 5.95 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2016-2017, 84 FR 9092 (March 13, 2019), and accompanying IDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e), 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 30, 2019.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-16656 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P