[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19437-19438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07295]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-876]
Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the Amended Final Determination in the
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, and Notice of Amended Final
Determination and Amended Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)
sustained the Department of Commerce's (Commerce's) second remand
redetermination pertaining to the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation of welded line pipe (WLP) from the Republic of Korea
(Korea). Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in
this case is not in harmony with Commerce's amended final determination
in the LTFV investigation of WLP from Korea and that Commerce is
amending the amended final determination and antidumping duty order
with respect to the weighted-average dumping margin for Hyundai HYSCO
Co. Ltd. (Hyundai HYSCO).
DATES: Applicable April 3, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Joshua Tucker, AD/
CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 and (202)
482-2044, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 13, 2015, Commerce published its Final Determination in
the LTFV investigation of WLP from Korea.\1\ Subsequently, on November
10, 2015, Commerce published its Amended Final Determination.\2\ On
December 1, 2015, Commerce published the Order resulting from the
investigation.\3\ As reflected in Commerce's Amended Final
Determination and Order, Commerce calculated weighted-average dumping
margins of 6.23 percent for Hyundai HYSCO, 2.53 percent for SeAH Steel
Corporation (SeAH), the other mandatory respondent in the
investigation, and 4.38 percent for all others.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 61366 (October
13, 2015) (Final Determination), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 69637
(November 10, 2015) (Amended Final Determination).
\3\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the
Republic of Turkey: Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 FR 75056 (December
1, 2015) (Order).
\4\ See Amended Final Determination, 80 FR at 69638; see also
Order, 80 FR at 75057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai HYSCO, SeAH, and the petitioners \5\ appealed Commerce's
Final Determination, as amended by the Amended Final Determination, and
resulting Order to the CIT. On January 8, 2019, the CIT remanded for
Commerce to explain or reconsider its decision to include certain
``local sales'' in Hyundai HYSCO's home market sales database.\6\
Separately, the CIT held that Commerce's rejection of Maverick's
September 8, 2015 supplemental case brief constituted an abuse of
discretion, and remanded for Commerce to review and determine which
portions should be retained on the record.\7\ On May 2, 2019, Commerce
issued the First Remand Results, in which it determined that Hyundai
HYSCO knew, or should have known, that certain ``local sales'' included
in its home market database would be exported without further
processing in Korea.\8\ Accordingly, Commerce reclassified these sales
and excluded them from the calculation of normal value (NV), which
resulted in a recalculated weighted-average dumping margin of 6.22
percent for Hyundai HYSCO.\9\ In addition, Commerce reopened the
administrative record to permit Maverick to place its September 8, 2015
supplemental case brief on the record in its entirety, and to permit
other interested parties to submit rebuttal briefs in response to
Maverick's supplemental case brief. Consistent with its practice to
determine home market viability early in a proceeding, Commerce did not
reconsider Hyundai HYSCO's home market viability.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The petitioners are: Stupp Corporation, a division of Stupp
Bros., Inc., TMK IPSCO, Welspun Tubular LLC USA, and Maverick Tube
Corporation (Maverick).
\6\ See Stupp Corporation et al. v. United States, 359 F. Supp.
3d 1293, 1309-1312 (CIT 2019).
\7\ Id., 359 F. Supp. 3d. at 1311-12.
\8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Consol. Court No. 15-00334, dated May 2, 2019 (First Remand
Results).
\9\ Id. at 13.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT, however, subsequently held that, by refusing to reassess
the viability of HYSCO's home market, ``Commerce failed to comply with
its statutory and regulatory mandate to ensure the sufficiency of the
home market as a basis for normal value.'' \11\ On that basis, it
remanded to Commerce to further explain or reconsider Hyundai HYSCO's
home market viability.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Stupp Corporation et al. v. United States, 413 F. Supp.
3d 1326, 1332 (CIT 2019).
\12\ Id., 413 F. Supp. 3d at 1333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 14, 2020, Commerce issued the Second Remand Results in
accordance with the CIT's order.\13\ On remand, Commerce provided
further explanation regarding Hyundai HYSCO's home market viability.
Specifically, Commerce explained that Hyundai HYSCO's home market sales
quantity was sufficient to permit Commerce to make a proper comparison
[[Page 19438]]
between export price and NV, consistent with its statutory and
regulatory mandates. On March 24, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce's
Second Remand Results.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Second
Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 15-00334 (January 14, 2020) (Second
Remand Results).
\14\ See Stupp Corporation et al. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 15-00334, Slip Op. 20-38, dated March 24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\15\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\16\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that,
pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not ``in
harmony'' with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of
entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision.\17\ The CIT's March 24
2020 judgment constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in
harmony with Commerce's Final Determination, Amended Final
Determination, and Order. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment
of the publication requirements of Timken and section 516A of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\16\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F. 3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
\17\ See sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Determination and Amended Order
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending
its Amended Final Determination and Order with respect to the weighted-
average dumping margin for Hyundai HYSCO.\18\ The revised weighted-
average dumping margin is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The change to Hyundai HYSCO's margin did not affect the
calculation of the all-others rate. See First Remand Results at 13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter/producer dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai HYSCO Co., Ltd.................................. 6.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for
Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel), the successor company to Hyundai
HYSCO,\19\ the cash deposit rate for Hyundai Steel will remain the rate
established in the most recently-completed administrative review (i.e.,
29.89 percent).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As discussed in the Final Determination, and accompanying
IDM at 1, Hyundai HYSCO merged with Hyundai Steel subsequent to the
period of investigation and Hyundai HYSCO no longer exists.
\20\ See Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Amended
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017,
84 FR 35371, 35372 (July 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c)(1) and (e), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 1, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-07295 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P